[whatwg] Add 'type' attribute to <mark>

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Pentasis <pentasis at lavabit.com> wrote:

> Yes, but this is a theoretical explanation that does not provide a
>>> consistent, practical solution.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand why these solutions aren't consistent or practical.
>>
>
> First of all, the spec admits it itself:
> "HTML does not have a dedicated mechanism for marking up footnotes. Here
> are the recommended alternatives."
> Alternatives are not real mechanisms.
>
> It gives us the option of using the title attribute (which has no mechanism
> of expansion and we cannot group them).
> Then it gives us the a element solution, which is how it is already done in
> most cases but leaves much to be desired (there are plenty of articles about
> it on the web).
> And last it tells us we can use the aside element. But in this example
> there is no *direct* relation to the actual word/phrase we put in the aside.
> It also gives us -again- no direct mechanism of expansion and no way of
> grouping footnotes/sidenotes.
>
> Now, I am perfectly happy for this spec not to provide a footnote
> construct, but in that case I would strongly suggest removing these
> alternatives and simply say it should be resolved using scripting (which has
> much more flexibility) or not say anything at all about it.
>

Grouping and such is a stylistic concern, though - as long as the document
expresses a footnote semantic, that's all it has to do.  For the rest, we
have a CSS Module that will cover that area, the Generated and Replaced
Content module [1].  By an astonishing coincidence, the editor of this
module is no less than Ian himself.

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/

~TJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081101/c3b07731/attachment.htm>