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" implies underlining, circling, and
drawing arrows -- but they do highlight. In university, I often saw
students perched with their notes and a highlighter, marking important
sections. The semantic meaning is to draw attention for later review.
In my eyes such an element is presentational β a more generic element,
but one with semantic meaning, like <m> is far more relevant (although
it may well be a good idea to suggest it be rendered as highlighted).
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 "Allow me to
highlight the fact that...")
"highlight" just means "draw attention to", which is exactly what
Google's cache highlighting is trying to do, and what a student
highlighting passages in a book is trying to do. The highlighting has no
effect on the content, it's just a navigation aid.
While the presentation in graphical browsers would likely resemble that
of paper β that is, a yellow background ββan aural browser wouldn't draw
attention to the mark as it is being read. It would hopefully instead
allow a user to quickly skip between passages containing highlighted
text much as sighted people do with their eyes as they scan over a page
with highlighted text.
