On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Pentasis wrote: > > Anyway, following some discussions on the web regarding footnotes/side > notes I have found that there is a need for some form of element to mark > these up. The most commonly accepted element at the moment seems to be > to use the <small> element. But this is clearly a wrong use of > semantics.
The spec already describes how to do footnotes: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#footnotes > As the <mark> element has different usages defined on it already why not > include a "type" attribute (or similar) that defines what it is used > for. One of these types would then be "footnote", others could be > (relating to what is already in the spec) "term", "highlight" etc. (I am > sure others would be much better at thinking up names than I am). That's what the "class" attribute is for. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'