[whatwg] How not to fix HTML

[Lachlan Hunt]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Joe Clark wrote:
>>> http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
> 
> FYI, my response to that his here. 
> http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/10/fixing-html

Joe Clark has responed.
http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/10/fixing-html#comment-713

His comment is copied here for discussion.

> annotation: A lot of things are annotations in PDF, including 
> comments. We could use annotation for suprasegmental features like 
> very long tooltips with block-level content, whose appearance could 
> be user-controlled (and accessible by screen readers and keyboard). 
> We could also just call blog comments annotations.
> 
> part, section and article (some in “HTML5”): A part can be a chapter 
> (we could also just say “chapter”). Articles could be included in 
> sections that are in turn included in parts and served as pages.
> 
> caption generically applicable to tables and figures: We can call it 
> legend if you’d like.
> 
> bibliographies, tables of contents, and indices (some in “HTML5”):
> “For tables of contents, isn’t existing list markup good enough?” No, 
> I’d prefer stronger associations between ToC and item than just a 
> hyperlink. I would also like to be able to suppress display of ToC in 
> some presentations. Of course I can do that with divs.
> 
> nonstruct for generic groupings: We can use it to group noncontiguous 
> elements, useful in e.g. error reports on submitted forms or Ajax 
> applications. E.g., nonstruct group=”X”.

Error reports are a good use case, but I'm not sure that nonstruct would 
be best for them.  There are accessibility reasons for explicitly 
marking up error information, particularly for forms, and current 
accessible techniques include writing the error message within the 
<label> and/or fieldset's <legend> to force screen readers to read it 
out.  Some markup for errors and a way to associate that error with a 
control might be useful.

> formula: “But doesn’t that fit into the category of science and 
> mathematics that you had issues with earlier?” Yes, but this one we 
> *need*.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/