The m element received a _lot_ of feedback; indeed as I write this the
subject line with the third most unanswered e-mails in my issues list is
simply The m element.
Executive Summary: Despite a lot of feedback suggesting dropping the
entire element, I considered the number of use cases for
(I apologise in advance for prolonging this already quite long thread,
but I cannot remember to have seen the following points being made yet.)
The specification correctly points out that i and b elements may be
restyled and that the text they contain will thus not necessarily be rendered
in
a reference for the user, which is exactly what this element is for. It
doesn't matter whether the user looks at it immediately, in 5 minutes,
tomorrow, or in the distant future; it's there for when the user needs it.
It comes to my mind that an appropriate name for this element woud be flag.
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
To my mind a flag denotes a single point somewhere in the document
and does not denote a range. So I associate it with the real-world
analogy of a flag placed somewhere in the document. So I am not an
advocate of flag
I see what you mean.
I am in the process of trying to grasp what highlighting
On Feb 10, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Jens Brueckmann wrote:
To my mind a flag denotes a single point somewhere in the document
and does not denote a range. So I associate it with the real-world
analogy of a flag placed somewhere in the document. So I am not an
advocate of flag
I see what you mean.
My problem is; strong and em do draw attention as well don't they? I
mean normally they do by some sort of mechanism (visual or aural).
Sure they do, as do headings, and images.
But the purpose is different. Whereas headings, objects, emphasis etc.
are usually an integral and static part of a
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
I don't like the idea of reusing an existing presentational element such
as u. Otherwise we'd immediately have the web full of incorrect uses
of the element.
I agree strongly.
Rule number one: Do not confuse users. Therefore it is bad usability to
underline
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:16:57 +0530, Jens Brueckmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
To my mind a flag denotes a single point somewhere in the document
and does not denote a range. So I associate it with the real-world
analogy of a flag placed somewhere in the document. So I am not an
advocate of
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:17:45 +0100, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
To my mind a flag denotes a single point somewhere in the document
and does not denote a range. So I associate it with the real-world
analogy of a flag placed somewhere in the document. So I am not an
advocate of flag
So does a
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:13:38 +0100, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
strong class=highlight
Anne suggested letting the microformat community think about it. That
could be our suggestion to them if decide to go that route.
--
/david_latapie U+0F00
http://blog.empyree.org/en (English)
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I agree that m should be dropped. I believe such an element
has never been requested before on www-html or equivalent fora.
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
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:36:25 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I agree that m should be dropped. I believe such an element
has never been requested before on www-html or equivalent fora.
No, the use cases for m are clear, and it is different from
David Latapie wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:36:25 +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
m marks a point of interest for future reference, it does not
denote importance. Everyone seems to be focussing on the definition
of highlight meaning emphasis as their argument that it is the same
as em and/or
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:21:39 +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I think your putting too much
emphasis on the word future. The google cache highlights the word
as a reference for the user, which is exactly what this element is
for. It doesn't matter whether the user looks at it immediately, in
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
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:46:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL
PROTECTED]wrote:
If I want to note a word in something someone else said ('does emphasis
*change*
the meaning, emphasis mine' is what you find in current usage) which tag do I
use?
IMO this is exactly the use case for m.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:46:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strong provides a strong emphasis, no?
Strong denotes importance (see the spec). This is a change from HTML4,
but HTML4 didn't really define the difference between emphasis and
strong emphasis anyway.
One is
2007/2/8, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
I think I agree that m should be dropped.
...
+1.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
On Feb 8, 2007, at 08:37, David Latapie wrote:
I also agree with Nicholas Shank that single-letter element shall be
avoided. We have only 26 possibilities, no more.
None of those 26 possibilities are doing anyone any good if we never
dare to use them.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Feb 8, 2007, at 08:37, David Latapie wrote:
I also agree with Nicholas Shank that single-letter element shall be
avoided. We have only 26 possibilities, no more.
None of those 26 possibilities are doing anyone any good if we never
dare to use them.
Agreed. However,
On 8 Feb 2007, at 9:42AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
importance is differen[t] from emphasis.
This is indeed what the current version of the specification says, but I
honestly
think this distinction is too artificial to work in practice.
HTML4 clearly defines em and strong as more or less (of)
On Feb 8, 2007, at 7:21 AM, David Håsäther wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Feb 8, 2007, at 08:37, David Latapie wrote:
I also agree with Nicholas Shank that single-letter element
shall be
avoided. We have only 26 possibilities, no more.
None of those 26 possibilities are doing anyone
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:59:44 -0500, David Walbert wrote:
I would be less concerned that it's a single letter than that m and
em are pronounced identically (in English, and in the other
European languages I can think of offhand) -- which would be
confusing if one were trying to explain them
On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:14 AM, David Latapie wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:59:44 -0500, David Walbert wrote:
I would be less concerned that it's a single letter than that m and
em are pronounced identically
On the top of my head...
(etc)
Fine -- you have me here on details -- but they are
Leons Petrazickis wrote:
They are marking the search terms with a highlighter. In an aural
browser, would these terms be read differently? Perhaps. Does this
transfer to mobile browsers? Very definitely.
How would an auraul browser treak these terms differently? I can perhaps imagine
some
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:23:33 -0500, Leons Petrazickis wrote:
On 2/8/07, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow
background. I submit that a much better name for m is hi
(hilite, highlite, highlight). People don't necessarily
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:23:33 +0100, Leons Petrazickis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow
background. I submit that a much better name for m is hi
(hilite, highlite, highlight). People don't necessarily mark
text much -- if anything,
On 8 Feb 2007, at 15:23, Leons Petrazickis wrote:
In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow
background. I submit that a much better name for m is hi
(hilite, highlite, highlight).
I don't like the look of hi — it doesn't tell me what it does
very well. Maybe it
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:36:47 +, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
File: hi
Browser: hi
File: i have some html for you
Browser: cool
Like it :-)
It seems to impart too much of a visual origin too. Like b andi did.
I still think mark would be better. It's short enough not to be
annoying, and long
On 8 Feb 2007, at 15:23, Leons Petrazickis wrote:
In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow
background. I submit that a much better name for m is hi
(hilite, highlite, highlight). People don't necessarily mark
text much -- if anything, mark implies underlining,
James Graham wrote:
Leons Petrazickis wrote:
They are marking the search terms with a highlighter. In an aural
browser, would these terms be read differently? Perhaps. Does this
transfer to mobile browsers? Very definitely.
How would an auraul browser treak these terms differently? I can
On 8 Feb 2007, at 18:00, David Latapie wrote:
Problem with mark/m is that its meaning is confusing.
I don't think it's any more confusing than hi would be. See below...
And still don't see any difference with em or strong. How would
you
pronounce an important word? How would you pronounce
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007, at 15:23, Leons Petrazickis wrote:
In the Western world, the standard for highlighting is a neon yellow
background. I submit that a much better name for m is hi
(hilite, highlite, highlight). People don't necessarily mark
text much -- if anything, mark
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:23:59 +, Martin Atkins wrote:
As for aural browsers, they too can implement the above navigation
aid, but allow the user to have the surrounding context read as well
so that it actually makes some sense, thus avoiding reading the
entire document just to locate the
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:43:20 +, Martin Atkins wrote:
The *meaning* is that the content is highlighted.
The concept of highlighting something is not presentational.
When I'm giving a speech, I can highlight a certain fact that my
listeners might not have been aware of. (e.g. by saying
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:21:08 +, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
Try to compare it with ins and del, it's an element concerned
with editing a document post-authorship, not marking up the
document's inherent structure.
Personally, I use ins/del a lot on my blog, to show updates. I
don't know if it
David Latapie écrivit:
Do you mean than focus is another subset of emphasis?
If you mean whether I think m conveys some sort of emphasis, then the answer
is yes.
I do not argue that a distinction between emphasis indicated by the
author and emphasis added afterwards is necessarily a bad idea,
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:53:15 +0100, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
David Latapie écrivit:
Do you mean than focus is another subset of emphasis?
If you mean whether I think m conveys some sort of emphasis, then
the answer
is yes.
You answered my question
I do not argue that a distinction
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:13:20 +0530, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The *meaning* is that the content is highlighted.
Or, as the first few definitions I looked at all said, emphasised.
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français -
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:05:12 +0530, Øistein E. Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007, at 9:42AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
importance is differen[t] from emphasis.
This is indeed what the current version of the specification says, but I
honestly
think this distinction is too
Leons, you forgot to CC the list.
Leons Petrazickis wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
m is for highlighting text that is of some interest to the reader, but
it does not alter the meaning of the text itself.
Would you say that em is semantic and m is presentational, with
the difference from span
On concern that we would be 'wasting' such a short element name for
such an esoteric usage, why not call it mark instead?
- Nicholas.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On concern that we would be 'wasting' such a short element name for
such an esoteric usage, why not call it mark instead?
I agree, I think the spec should be hesitant to introduce additional
single-letter element names.
Regards,
Maciej
--- Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leons, you forgot to CC the list.
Leons Petrazickis wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
m is for highlighting text that is of some interest to the reader, but
it does not alter the meaning of the text itself.
Would you say that em is semantic and
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:21:49 +0530, Jonathan Worent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leons, you forgot to CC the list.
Leons Petrazickis wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
m is for highlighting text that is of some interest to the reader, but
it does not
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In what way, apart from denoting that something is particularly relevant within
a phrase in a given context, does emphasis change the meaning of something?
The spec gives a good example showing how it changes the meaning.
Leons Petrazickis wrote:
No, m does have semantics. It marks a specific point of interest,
as you might do with a highlighter, it just doesn't alter the meaning
of the text itself.
m isn't really needed for revision tracking, we have ins and
del for that. Though, another use case is
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:01:52 +0530, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In what way, apart from denoting that something is particularly relevant
within
a phrase in a given context, does emphasis change the meaning of something?
The spec gives a good example
Sarven Capadisli wrote:
re: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-m
Following is a conversation from #whatwg on freenode.
csarven if anyone would like to explain the `m` element further, i'd
appreciate it. couldn't get much info out of the whatwg Archives
zcorpan you use it
A possibility:
i -- em
b -- strong
u -- m
s --
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
On Feb 6, 2007, at 13:18, Elliotte Harold wrote:
u -- m
FWIW, I've already suggested dropping m and repurposing u for the use
case.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:25:37 +0530, Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:13:27 +0100, Mikko Rantalainen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perhaps m should be considered as a special case of em. I would have
to agree that semantic value of m over em is next to
On 2/6/07, Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:13:27 +0100, Mikko Rantalainen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perhaps m should be considered as a special case of em. I would have
to agree that semantic value of m over em is next to meaningless. I
think that one usable
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
I fail to see how this is different from an em element... (very loose and abused
semantics, but I dont see how adding a new element to mess up is helpful)
em is for emphasis, m is not. They have very different meanings.
zcorpan one reason might be to highlight
I fail to see how this is different from an em element... (very loose and
abused
semantics, but I dont see how adding a new element to mess up is helpful)
my 2 cents
chaals
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:19:56 +0100, Sarven Capadisli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re:
re: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-m
Following is a conversation from #whatwg on freenode.
csarven if anyone would like to explain the `m` element further, i'd
appreciate it. couldn't get much info out of the whatwg Archives
zcorpan you use it to mark text
csarven
57 matches
Mail list logo
