RE: <spoiler> element

Hi Alan/Jeremy,

On the *semantic* side of this, the purpose of @role is to provide features
that may be an absolute necessity in one domain but completely irrelevant in
another. So rather than having to fight over them on the list all the time,
each sphere that is using XHTML 2 can add whatever they like. :)

In this case, we might have:

  <section role="x:spoiler">
    <p>The butler did it.</p>
  </section>

As to the *behaviour* side, that's a little more tricky. Work is going on to
provide a way to define the behaviour of different values of role, using
RDF. I would hope that x:spoiler could somewhere be defined as inheriting
from a role that "shows and hides itself on user activation". (This could
actually be in the document itself.)

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Trick
> Sent: 07 December 2005 09:30
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: <spoiler> element
> 
> 
> I only received 1 email, so don't worry.
> 
> Anyways, my reaction to this is a definate no. The point of 
> (X)HTML is not to describe everything that could possibly 
> have semantics. It is to provide a common language that 
> everyone can use. When we add more terms (elements, 
> attributes, etc) we make the language more difficult - both 
> for the authours (the webmasters who have to know HTML) and 
> the readers (the browsers and bots who have to implement the 
> stuff). In my oppinion this is not a generic enough element 
> to be useful.
> 
> Try using a deffinition list with the class of 'spoiler', and 
> then style it CSS and add javascript that will do what you want.
> 
> Alan Trick
> 
> On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 17:48 -0600, Jeremy Rand wrote:
> > I have a suggestion for an element which could be included 
> in XHTML 2.
> > This is a <spoiler> element.  This element would have the 
> content of a 
> > <spoildesc> element, and a <spoilcontent> element.  The 
> behavior would 
> > be that when the user agent encounters a <spoiler> element, 
> it should 
> > render the content of its <spoildesc>, and provide a way 
> for the user 
> > to activate the <spoiler>.  Once the <spoiler> is 
> activated, the user 
> > agent should show the content of the <spoilcontent>.
> > 
> > This would be useful in many situations where the user 
> might not want 
> > to see certain content.  Examples are:
> > 
> > Spoilers of the plot of a book or movie Offensive language 
> Disturbing 
> > medical photos Pornographic or otherwise not-safe-for-work 
> content The 
> > answer to a riddle Content with flashing lights that could cause 
> > epileptic seizures
> > 
> > I'm sure there are more examples of uses for <spoiler>, but I can't 
> > think of any more right now.
> > 
> > An example of its usage would be:
> > 
> > <p>Did you hear about the cement mixer that ran over Batman and 
> > Robin?</p> <p><spoiler> <spoildesc>Activate to see 
> > punchline.</spoildesc> <spoilcontent>It created two new 
> superheroes: 
> > Flatman and Ribbon.</spoilcontent> </spoiler></p>
> > 
> > I know <spoiler> isn't a very good name for it, since there 
> are other 
> > uses as well, but I can't think of a better name.  I know that 
> > <spoiler> is implemented into a forum-hosting site's 
> posting system (I 
> > can't remember which site); it just displays the content of 
> <spoiler> 
> > in identical foreground and background colors so that you 
> must select 
> > the text to read it.  Also, I realize that this could be done using 
> > either scripting or links, but I think links are 
> inappropriate, since 
> > the content is part of the original document.  I think scripting is 
> > inappropriate, since this has semantic meaning, so I think 
> it should 
> > be a standard XHTML element.
> > 
> > Does this proposal sound good?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jeremy Rand
> > 
> > PS: Norton E-mail Proxy says this message didn't send 
> properly, so I'm 
> > sending it again.  Apologies if anyone receives two copies.
> > 
> > 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
> around http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 10:09:37 UTC