On 6/24/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
You seem to be implying that you think we should only
introduce purely
semantic tags if we already have other semantic tags. You therefore seem
to be of the opinion that unsemantic tags are favourable in a context
where most mark-up is already unsemantic. But if this was the case, then
surely HTML would not have introduced things like <em> and <strong> and
deprecated things like <font>, and instead have introduced things like
<marquee> or <blink>.
So, the reason <poem> was made a semantic tag is because semantic tags
are good, independently of whether we already have semantic tags or not.
Ok, ok, slow down :) I haven't formed an opinion on semantic tags, I'm
just curious whether this reflects a long term direction for
MediaWiki, whether there will be others, and so forth.
I suppose I was also thinking that if the only special formatting
provided by <poem> is that leading spaces are significant, then maybe
it would be attractive to just define <leadingspacesaresignificant>
(for example), then use templates, like {{poemstart}}/{{poemend}} for
the appropriate semantic markup. Is there a particular advantage in
having semantic markup at the wiki syntax level, rather than at the
template level?
Imagine we use the same tag for poems and for cooking recipes. Some time
in the future we decide we actually want the mark-up to behave slightly
(or even completely) differently for recipes. This is why we need
separate mark-up for separate purposes.
I would certainly recommend using {{poem}} and {{recipe}} or something
in that case. Then you could simply change the template when they
split.
And yes, I know that ideally this reasoning also calls
for separate
mark-ups that are currently all handled with '' (emphasis, maths
variables, song/film titles, etc.). Obviously in this situation it is
futile to hope for the ideal. Doesn't mean we have to create the same
suboptimal situation in something as rarely-used as poems, though.
I agree with your general argument that "just because X is bad,
doesn't mean Y has to be bad too". And I certainly have no objection
to this new tag, I'm just interested in its implications.
Steve