https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671
Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Whitelist more HTML tags: |Whitelist more HTML tags: |acronym address dfn kbd q |dfn kbd q samp |samp | --- Comment #40 from Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> 2010-07-21 19:26:40 UTC --- The question isn't whether you could conceive of a case where <samp> or <kbd> could legitimately be used, but rather whether you can come up with a case where it would be *more* useful than just using <code> or <tt> or whatever. If not, why should we whitelist them? They'll just confuse people, they don't add anything. If a wiki actually wants to use <q> despite the IE problems, it can request that and it might be considered. I haven't seen such a request. If it were allowed across the board, individuals would use it without realizing the problems, figuring that because it works in their browser it must work for everyone. Moreover, <q> is much harder to type than regular old quotation marks, so is anti-wiki. (I removed acronym and address from the summary because no one seems to support adding them.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
