- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:33:49 +0100
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:56:05 +0100, Michael(tm) Smith <mikes at opera.com> wrote: > If the design criteria were to try to keep names of new elements > reasonably short while still having unobscure meanings, then > <time> and <term> would seem to meet that criteria, and <m> would > better be <mark>. But I'm not sure what the criteria are. I mean, > what's the rationale behind having <meter> and <progress> while > reducing the name of the date/time element to <t>? Well, if done correctly, you would probably use <t>, <x> and <m> a lot. Where <meter> and <progress> don't really appear that often. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 00:33:49 UTC