[whatwg] Thoughts on the <hi> element (formerly the <m> element).

[Matthew Raymond]

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> I've been pondering a use for the <m> element, and I agree that the
>> highlighting sematics make the name "hi" a better choice. Also, I think
>> it would be most useful in this context:
>>
>> | <blockquote>
>> |   XForms is a W3C recommendation.
>> |   <hi by="Matthew Raymond" title="This comment has no logical basis.">
>> |   XForms Tiny is does not conflict with XForms, but WF2 does.</hi>
>> | </blockquote>
> 
> Whatever the merits of <hi> over <ins>, putting complex notes intended
> for human consumption into attributes like "title" that cannot contain
> hypermedia references or semantic or linguistic information seems
> guaranteed to break.

   It is not typical for complex notes to be included inline with the
quotation. Usually, they're included after the quotation. I'm using the
|title| attribute specifically for a simple tooltip-style comment.
Regardless of whether one could potentially include a complex comment,
though, it only makes sense that simple comments use |title|.

   Arguing for complex tooltips is beyond the scope of this element, I
would think, because it applies to nearly all elements.