Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: [html] "title" text semantics, and "minor" element discussion

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:54:22 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20051018142137.03150978@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: www-html@w3.org

Hi Jukka and Jens,

At 14:14 18/10/2005, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Jens Meiert wrote:
>
>>* In general, why ain't it allowed to include markup within the "title"
>>element [1], what's the historical background?
>
>If you look at the good old HTML 2.0 specification, you can see some of 
>the intended uses of the content of the <title> element. Many of them 
>involve treating the content as plain text. It is probably better that you 
>directly write it as plain text, rather than let some software 
>transmogrify it into plain text.

I don't expect a change to "title" in HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x, but the ability 
to mark up changes in natural language in "title" has been requested for 
XHTML 2.0.

>(...)
>>* Also in general, why is there no way to designate rather "unimportant"
>>text?
>
>Do you want the real answer or a good explanation? The real answer is 
>being important was not really important.
>
>>I can use "em" and "strong" for emphasis,
>
>You can, while others use <i> and <b>. The <em> and <strong> were 
>introduced just as clones of <i> and <b> for academicians. The official 
>story is different, but you may make some conclusions from the fact that
>- there is no real semantic definition for <em> and <strong>
>   (e.g., how they relate to each other, and what does it mean
>   to nest them?)

The same kind of definition is still lacking from the current draft of 
XHTML 2 [1]:
"The em element indicates emphasis for its contents."
"The strong element indicates higher importance for its contents than that 
of the surrounding content."


>- nobody cared to add markup for "unimportant" or "de-emphasis",
>   despite the obvious need as soon as you start thinking semantically.

This could still be added to the Text Module of XHTML 2. I forgot to add this
to my own comments on the current Working Draft [2].


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod-text.html 
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2005JulSep/att-0040/XHTML2_20050527_comments.html 

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/  


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm 
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2005 12:55:49 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.