--- James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Worent wrote: > > > The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of > > elements in the spec > right > > now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec > > because they have > merit. > > No, the argument that no one would use it is important. More elements => more > complex spec which is harder to implement /and to use/. Making HTML harder to > use is a real cost (compare HTML to e.g. Docbook) which needs to be > outweighed > by a benefit. As far as I can see, no-one has presented a convincing use case > for a deemphasis element - certianly the most common argument has been "well > we > have emphasis so obviously we need deemphasis" which is a lousy > justification.
That was brought but a as secondary argument (still a valid point IMHO). My original use case was for transcribing dialog. This was something I was trying to do when I originally purposed it back in Aug. 07. > Unless there is some UA feature that would be enabled by such an element, and > some evidence that people would use the element in the correct way in > sufficient > numbers to make the feature useful, the element should not exist. It is true > that several existing HTML elements do not meet this criteria; that is IMHO > an > unfortunate piece of history that we need not replicate. > > -- > "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" > -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
