> 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 that it could be used to > mark a section that needs to be reviewed and/or edited later. That > could be particularly useful collaborative editing, like in a wiki. > That's often what I use the highlighter tool for in MS Word.
Hi, I too can't see the point in this <m> element. Semantic highlighting already exists (<em> and <strong>, although I personally would prefer <em value="+1">, so that we could get <em value="-1"> too and so I would not need to use <small> anymore). I also agree with Nicholas Shank that single-letter element shall be avoided. We have only 26 possibilities, no more. We'd better be very careful on this. Even <a> is of doubtful use if we use the XHTML2 idea of anchoring anything. As for the “need for editing/note”, this is how I use the <tt>element</tt> -- </david_latapie> U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
