Add new tags to HTML
Nicolas Lesbats
Add new tags in HTML seems to not interest a lot of people any more, but I
think there still is some things to do.
Here I give you the in-my-opinion-missing tags :
1. Format titles of books, movies, etc.
Traditionally, titles are rendering italic. We can code them by <em> but
is there really a semantically good solution ?
I would prefer <work> or something like that (the exact term is to be
found).
2. More important : express distance with the text
Traditionally rendered by quotes. You express doubts about what you are
saying. The linguistical, french term is "distanciation" (I suppose it too
exists in english), and it is opposed with "accentuation" ("emphasize",
rendered by <em>).
This is really a missed characteristic. We could imagine a tag like <dis>
(from the latin "separed from", like dis-tance), or more specifically
<expr> (like "expression"), or another word, it's not the word itself
which is important, but its signification.
What do you think about that ? (was there already a discussion about ?)
3. Clear the <q>'s meaning
Some browsers render <q> with quotes, other without. So, this tag is
not usable ! CSS2 is not enough implemented and known to correct the
problem. So, there is too something to do with that. Isn't there ?
Regards,
Nico
--
"Et bien tu vois, Stan, les vaches... c'est le mal. Leur coeur noir
ne pompe pas du sang comme toi et moi mais un liquide visqueux qui circule
dans leurs veines pourries pour irriguer leur cerveau minuscule, ce qui
fait qu'elles adoptent un comportement hallucinatoire (danger : soucoupes)
et que Dieu les a puni en les envoyant toutes vivre... en Normandie (ou il
pleut trois fois plus qu'a Compi...)." ('xcuse-moi, Milou...)
Nir Dagan
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Nicolas Lesbats wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Add new tags in HTML seems to not interest a lot of people any more, but I
> think there still is some things to do.
>
> Here I give you the in-my-opinion-missing tags :
>
> 1. Format titles of books, movies, etc.
>
> Traditionally, titles are rendering italic. We can code them by <em> but
> is there really a semantically good solution ?
There is a solution, the CITE element.
> 3. Clear the <q>'s meaning
>
> Some browsers render <q> with quotes, other without. So, this tag is
> not usable ! CSS2 is not enough implemented and known to correct the
> problem. So, there is too something to do with that. Isn't there ?
>
The meaning of Q is clear. Browsers have to display it with
quots. You can send bug reports to browsers who claim to
implement HTML4.0 and do not do so.
Regards,
Nir Dagan
Braden N. McDaniel
From: Nicolas Lesbats <nles...@etu.utc.fr>
To: <www-...@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 7:46 AM
Subject: Add new tags to HTML
> Hi,
>
> Add new tags in HTML seems to not interest a lot of people any more, but I
> think there still is some things to do.
The canned answer to such suggestions is that you can create your own markup
in XML.
The main reasons that no tags are likely to be added in the near future
are... HTML as an SGML application has probably seen its end in the HTML 4.0
specification. It seems unlikely that there will be much motivation to
continue this line. It looks like the future of HTML is XHTML or some
derivative thereof. The single task of XHTML 1.0 seems to be to express the
functionality of HTML 4.0 in XML terms. Perhaps there will be subsequent
versions of XHTML that extend the tagset.
> Here I give you the in-my-opinion-missing tags :
>
> 1. Format titles of books, movies, etc.
>
> Traditionally, titles are rendering italic. We can code them by <em> but
> is there really a semantically good solution ?
>
> I would prefer <work> or something like that (the exact term is to be
> found).
CITE is generally used for this, though I think this element is a little
vague. Often, a citation consists of more than just a title. But
historically, titles seem to be all it's really good at. There is also the
problem that italics are not the convention for all kinds of cited
titles--quotes are appropriate for some.
> 2. More important : express distance with the text
>
> Traditionally rendered by quotes. You express doubts about what you are
> saying. The linguistical, french term is "distanciation" (I suppose it too
> exists in english), and it is opposed with "accentuation" ("emphasize",
> rendered by <em>).
>
> This is really a missed characteristic. We could imagine a tag like <dis>
> (from the latin "separed from", like dis-tance), or more specifically
> <expr> (like "expression"), or another word, it's not the word itself
> which is important, but its signification.
>
> What do you think about that ? (was there already a discussion about ?)
This seems a reasonable suggestion. I like "dis".
> 3. Clear the <q>'s meaning
>
> Some browsers render <q> with quotes, other without. So, this tag is
> not usable ! CSS2 is not enough implemented and known to correct the
> problem. So, there is too something to do with that. Isn't there ?
The HTML 4 spec says:
"Visual user agents must ensure that the content of the Q element is
rendered with delimiting quotation marks. Authors should not put quotation
marks at the beginning and end of the content of a Q element."
This appears to be unambiguous--I'm not sure how it could be clarified. The
unfortunate fact is that no HTML 4 browsers exist.
Braden N. McDaniel
bra...@endoframe.com
<URI:http://www.endoframe.com>
Nicolas Lesbats
| > Add new tags in HTML seems to not interest a lot of people any more, but I
| > think there still is some things to do.
|
| The canned answer to such suggestions is that you can create your own markup
| in XML.
The question is (it seems to be a very important point, but I haven't
found the answer anywhere) : can you create your own tags in XHTML
*without* refering to a DTD (well-formed XHTML...), and formatting them
with stylesheets ?
| The main reasons that no tags are likely to be added in the near future
| are... HTML as an SGML application has probably seen its end in the HTML 4.0
| specification. It seems unlikely that there will be much motivation to
| continue this line. It looks like the future of HTML is XHTML or some
| derivative thereof. The single task of XHTML 1.0 seems to be to express the
| functionality of HTML 4.0 in XML terms. Perhaps there will be subsequent
| versions of XHTML that extend the tagset.
Depending on the answer of my question above. If people *can't* create new
tags, then the existence of XHTML as the successor of HTML is very, very
important, and developping this language are also very important.
| > 1. Format titles of books, movies, etc.
| >
|
| CITE is generally used for this, though I think this element is a little
| vague. Often, a citation consists of more than just a title. But
| historically, titles seem to be all it's really good at. There is also the
| problem that italics are not the convention for all kinds of cited
| titles--quotes are appropriate for some.
..and underline, etc. But you can add a 'class' attribute, which is made for
that. Thanks for your answer, I think the <cite> tag is what I want (the
spec is not very clear about it...)
| > 2. More important : express distance with the text
| >
| > Traditionally rendered by quotes. You express doubts about what you are
| > saying. The linguistical, french term is "distanciation" (I suppose it too
| > exists in english), and it is opposed with "accentuation" ("emphasize",
| > rendered by <em>).
|
| This seems a reasonable suggestion. I like "dis".
But time is not to imagine new tags, right ?
Could <q> be semantically used in this case (or does it only concern
citations ?). [It's a problem of translation : does the 'quote' element
mean 'thing between quotes' or 'citation']
| The HTML 4 spec says:
|
| "Visual user agents must ensure that the content of the Q element is
| rendered with delimiting quotation marks. Authors should not put quotation
| marks at the beginning and end of the content of a Q element."
|
| This appears to be unambiguous--I'm not sure how it could be clarified. The
| unfortunate fact is that no HTML 4 browsers exist.
Yes, right. Right there is absolutely no solution to be sure the <q>
element will be rendered correctly, except Consortium members or other
create HTML 4.0-conformant browsers...
--
Nicolas Lesbats - nles...@etu.utc.fr
85 r. Carnot 60200 Compiegne - France
+33/0 686 800 908
Plaider <http://wwwassos.utc.fr/~plaider/>
(voir aussi AI France <http://www.amnesty.asso.fr/>
see also AI <http://www.amnesty.org/>)
Braden N. McDaniel
Cc: <www-...@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Add new tags to HTML
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Braden N. McDaniel wrote:
>
> | > Add new tags in HTML seems to not interest a lot of people any more,
but I
> | > think there still is some things to do.
> |
> | The canned answer to such suggestions is that you can create your own
markup
> | in XML.
>
> The question is (it seems to be a very important point, but I haven't
> found the answer anywhere) : can you create your own tags in XHTML
> *without* refering to a DTD (well-formed XHTML...), and formatting them
> with stylesheets ?
3.1 of the XHTML spec currently says that conforming XHTML documents *must*
be valid to one of the XHTML DTDs. So I think the answer is: you can't do
that.
I think if you want custom tags, you need to create and style the whole
tagset yourself. (I think this shouldn't *require* a DTD, though it would
probably be a good idea.) Note that there's no reason you couldn't use many
of the same tagnames as emplyed by XHTML. (What this would buy you other
than confusion and possible treatment as HTML in legacy browsers, I'm not
sure.)
> | The main reasons that no tags are likely to be added in the near future
> | are... HTML as an SGML application has probably seen its end in the HTML
4.0
> | specification. It seems unlikely that there will be much motivation to
> | continue this line. It looks like the future of HTML is XHTML or some
> | derivative thereof. The single task of XHTML 1.0 seems to be to express
the
> | functionality of HTML 4.0 in XML terms. Perhaps there will be subsequent
> | versions of XHTML that extend the tagset.
>
> Depending on the answer of my question above. If people *can't* create new
> tags, then the existence of XHTML as the successor of HTML is very, very
> important, and developping this language are also very important.
I'm inclined to agree with that.
> | > 1. Format titles of books, movies, etc.
> | >
> |
> | CITE is generally used for this, though I think this element is a little
> | vague. Often, a citation consists of more than just a title. But
> | historically, titles seem to be all it's really good at. There is also
the
> | problem that italics are not the convention for all kinds of cited
> | titles--quotes are appropriate for some.
>
> ...and underline, etc. But you can add a 'class' attribute, which is made
for
> that. Thanks for your answer, I think the <cite> tag is what I want (the
> spec is not very clear about it...)
CLASS is handy, but unlike elements in a standardized markup language, class
meanings are context-unique.
> | > 2. More important : express distance with the text
> | >
> | > Traditionally rendered by quotes. You express doubts about what you
are
> | > saying. The linguistical, french term is "distanciation" (I suppose it
too
> | > exists in english), and it is opposed with "accentuation"
("emphasize",
> | > rendered by <em>).
> |
> | This seems a reasonable suggestion. I like "dis".
>
> But time is not to imagine new tags, right ?
>
> Could <q> be semantically used in this case (or does it only concern
> citations ?). [It's a problem of translation : does the 'quote' element
> mean 'thing between quotes' or 'citation']
It's a problem of translation of English->English, as well. Because of Q's
CITE attribute, I'm been reluctant to use it for things that aren't
quotations. I suspect you'll find differing opinions on this one.
Tim Bagot
> 3.1 of the XHTML spec currently says that conforming XHTML documents *must*
> be valid to one of the XHTML DTDs. So I think the answer is: you can't do
> that.
Could one still validly use XHTML with XML namespaces, thereby permitting
the embedding of document segments using other DTDs (and, presumably,
style sheets)?
Tim Bagot
Dave Raggett
Yes, this is ok, but the XHTML 1.0 spec defines strict conformance
only in terms of the DTDs included in the spec. The W3C HTML
activity is chartered to work on defining document profiles for
combinations of XHTML modules and other tagsets.
Regards,
-- Dave Raggett <d...@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
phone: +44 122 578 2984 (or 2521) +44 385 320 444 (gsm mobile)
World Wide Web Consortium (on assignment from HP Labs)