jworent at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 9 11:21:25 PST 2007
--- James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Jonathan Worent wrote:
> > The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of elements in the spec
> > now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have
> No, the argument that no one would use it is important. More elements => more
> complex spec which is harder to implement /and to use/. Making HTML harder to
> use is a real cost (compare HTML to e.g. Docbook) which needs to be outweighed
> by a benefit. As far as I can see, no-one has presented a convincing use case
> for a deemphasis element - certianly the most common argument has been "well we
> have emphasis so obviously we need deemphasis" which is a lousy justification.
That was brought but a as secondary argument (still a valid point IMHO). My original use case was
for transcribing dialog. This was something I was trying to do when I originally purposed it back
in Aug. 07.
> Unless there is some UA feature that would be enabled by such an element, and
> some evidence that people would use the element in the correct way in sufficient
> numbers to make the feature useful, the element should not exist. It is true
> that several existing HTML elements do not meet this criteria; that is IMHO an
> unfortunate piece of history that we need not replicate.
> "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
> -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
More information about the whatwg