On 6/24/06, Timwi timwi@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