- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 13:35:42 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Hello, I think, a notation like <mask> is contraproductive for reading. It mainly gives the impression, that there seems to be a deficit in using proper markup like (X)HTML ;o) However semantics and styling can be improved in appropriate ways: 1. In the normal text often one can write 'the element mask ...' or 'the mask attribute ...' or 'the property mask ...' - this is understandable even without interpretation of styling or symbols or specific markup. 2. To have a markup independent from the text around the critical word, for example one can use more or less appropriate (X)HTML elements, for example the element strong for elements and the element em for attributes and properties - maybe in addition to the element code. Unfortunately the collection of semantical elements in (X)HTML is small, therefore one cannot expect to have more appropriate elements for such specific purposes. Another option instead of strong and em would be the elements b and i - if one explains the semantical meaning for the context of the draft/recommendation, this should be ok and assuming, b and i are not used for other purpuses in the text, this can be a good choice. 3. To provide more information about the semantical meaning, simply use for example the property attribute from RDFa, the value can point to a definition of used values like element, attribute, property. I think, there is currently no recommended version of (X)HTML, that has already the attribute role, this could have been an alternative to the attribute property of course. 4. After the semantical meaning is indicated with proper markup, it should be no problem, to style such specific structures as well with CSS, the markup should contain enough information for selectors, CSS has. Olaf
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 12:36:12 UTC