Re: @type for <p>?

Sure, if you'll have me. pfs

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017, at 18:23, Martin Mueller wrote:
> While validating a set of TCP files, I came across A06301, “The briefe
> contents of the bill exhibited against logwood, and abuses in dying”, a
> pamphlet by the Dyers’ Company. It has ten instances of < p
> rend=”small”>.  Which reminded me of the recent thread about type
> attributes for <p>.  Are there half a dozen folks on this list who would
> like to join me in drafting a proposal?
> 
> This is not a new issue, and the arguments pro and con are pretty well
> established. I happen to think it would be a good idea to use type
> attributes as a way of marking a fluid hierarchy that is less rigid than
> the hierarchy of divs. Others may disagree. If half a dozen people will
> join me, I’ll draft a proposal and circulate it among for amendments
> before submitting it as a formal ticket. If not, I won’t.
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
University of Michigan Libraries
[email protected] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/