[whatwg] The m element
mail at jorgenhorstink.nl
Sat Feb 10 03:13:38 PST 2007
On Feb 10, 2007, at 3:41 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Le 2007-02-09 à 16:36, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
>> No, the use cases for <m> are clear, and it is different from both
>> <em> and <strong>. I think it should be kept as-is, though its
>> definition in the spec clearly needs to be improved.
> Suggestion of an improvement to the spec:
> "The m element represents a run of text marked or highlighted for
> reference purposes."
> I think adding "for reference purposes" to the current definition
> helps distinguish it from importance (given by <strong>) or stress
> emphasis (given by <em>).
> <em> : stress emphasis (changes the meaning)
> <strong> : importance (no change in meaning)
> <m> : reference marker (no change in meaning or importance)
I've been reading the entire discussion now, and I am still not
completely convinced of the need for the <m> element. In sum the
element <m> is now explained as highlighting (or marking, I don't
care about naming) for reference purposes.
Lachlan Hunt explained that 'future reference' can be within weeks
(when you have to learn an exam for example), days, minutes or
immediately (google cache). My main concern is; what are we
referencing? To my mind it is important content. When we highlight
articles, we only highlight the important pieces of content which are
useful to us to generate a mental model of the material. When we
highlight search keywords, we only highlight the important words
within the context of the query.
Concluding: to my mind a reference marker implies importance; we only
highlight what is important for some use by some user. So, to blow
the flame a little more, why not using a strong element with
> Michel Fortin
> michel.fortin at michelf.com
More information about the whatwg