Re: [Structure Module] Renaming the <html> element to more semantic name

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:48:07 +0100, Anne van Kesteren  
<fora@annevankesteren.nl> wrote:

> You must have missed the introduction of the "img" element in the
> latest draft that the "a" element is still here, that "h1-h6" arestill  
> there without a story on how they interact with new markup,

Yep.

> that "accesskey" came back with a new name, etc.

No, that actually have come to my attention and I am just as surprised as  
everyone else that have spoken their opinion on the matter.

> However, let me note that the html element defined in XHTML 2.0 is not
> backwards compatible, it has a new namespace for non obvious reasons.

Well, still. The element's name 'html' is obviously kept for legacy  
reasons even though it in technical terms isn't truly backwards-compatible.

> html:q was renamed to xhtml2:quote and I'm still not sure why that
> was done.

Well, since XHTML 2.0 supposedly weren't (or won't?) supposed to be  
backwards-compatible with XHTML 1.x, it makes sense to rename the less  
intuitively named elements into more intuitive ones. Renaming 'q' to  
'quote' is therefore a step in the right direction. Renaming 'accesskey'  
to 'key' is not.

> User agents should be free to style to style the html:q element as
> they wish, including styling it with quotes.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get what you're thinking of here. What does  
this have to do with the relation to 'quote'?

> And there are many more issues which I'm all saving up for when it
> reaches last call.

I would, as Ian Hickson, recommend you to publish your thoughts as soon as  
possible; at least on your blog, so the issues can be discussed now  
instead of later. I'm very interested in your opinions on the  
specification, and the XHTML 2.0 authors should be as well.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:20:52 UTC