[whatwg] The m element
david at empyree.org
Thu Feb 8 07:53:51 PST 2007
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:23:33 -0500, Leons Petrazickis wrote:
> On 2/8/07, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow
> background. I submit that a much better name for <m> is <hi>
> (<hilite>, <highlite>, <highlight>). People don't necessarily mark
> text much -- if anything, "mark" implies underlining, circling, and
> drawing arrows -- but they do highlight. In university, I often saw
> students perched with their notes and a highlighter, marking important
> sections. The semantic meaning is to draw attention for later review.
My opinion. Of course, feel free to discard it entirely.
== <hi> is better than <m> ==
- is m/hi for highlighting? Or for marking future reference? Work notes
(that I presently format with <tt>) and search highlight (à la Google)
seem to be grouped together, whereas they are much different.
I much prefer <hi> than <m>, because the former is closer to the use.
Mark may be understood as *id* (for anchors), as *comments*, or *work
notes*. For instance:
"HTML was released in 1992 <m>check about the 1989 allegation</m>"
No such misunderstanding with <hi>
== hi is not necessary ==
What Google is doing is almost good (almost, because <strong> would be
better here). The highlighted words are the important ones.
Highlighting could be some kind of <emph value="+3">. Still, we are in
the importance mindset. And students highlighting whole paragraphs are
doing just that. Denoting importance.
Well, I summed up my feelings. I would be delighted to be convinced I'm
More information about the whatwg