Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-10-31 09:43 -0500: > I find the proposed <x> and <t> elements to lack expressiveness in > their names. I understand that making them shorter is desirable, but > it also has a drawback: they're harder to understand simply by > looking at the source and their meaning can more easily be > misunderstood. Not everybody read the spec and those that don't are > more prone to use them inappropriately. > > Personally, I'd favor <term> and <time> instead, or anything else > that conveys a meaning.
If the design criteria were to try to keep names of new elements reasonably short while still having unobscure meanings, then <time> and <term> would seem to meet that criteria, and <m> would better be <mark>. But I'm not sure what the criteria are. I mean, what's the rationale behind having <meter> and <progress> while reducing the name of the date/time element to <t>? --Mike
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
