Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

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.


> 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.


> 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]



Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 05:55:17 UTC