- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 05:56:08 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
kelvSYC wrote: > > rev Attribute: > I don't see the point in having this, when something like rel="reverse" > might work. Some relationships are more eloquently expressed in reverse. For example, I haven't been able to come up with a suitable replacement for rev="description" > pre Element: > Looks presentatonal for its example. I'd say drop it - I don't think it > has any semantical relevance. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Apr/0261.html > cite Element and Attribute: > I think the entire citation mechanism needs to be reworked. What if > someone used print (or generally non-internet) citations? Currently, > the cites cannot address this. Agreed. > dfn Element: > I don't get it. It's the defining instance of a term. You see this a lot in textbooks, like where the section on Covalent Bonds has a paragraph that begins A _covalent bond_ is... (It's in running text--not a definition list.) > strong Element: > It's semantically identical to the em element. Remove it. It's not identical. The emphasis is stronger in <strong>. > dl, dt, and dd Elements: [put <dt> & <dd> in container] > label Element: [add to ol, ul] Agreed. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 05:55:17 UTC