(Despite the subject line, this thread quickly veered way from Joe's blog
post and instead covered a variety of subjects. I have attempts to address
the points that had substance and may affect the spec in my replies below.
Please let me know if I missed something in this thread that you
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:08:16 +0100, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does that help anyone? Putting them in a custom XML vocabulary
drops all semantics directly. (Unless a search engine does some
heuristics on element names I suppose.) Custom XML vocabularies are
really not
On Mar 23, 2007, at 02:04, Christoph Päper wrote:
(Why is i class=var better than var?)
It isn't. But i is better than var for editor UIs if all you
want to do is to italicize (the common case).
Isn't this a very western point of view?
Perhaps, but it is still the common case, because
On 23 Mar 2007, at 02:27, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
Just because most ... doesn't bother doesn't mean it ought to be
removed.
So let's not ignore elements because no one uses them.
Ignore them because they are useless.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
1) We start with a set containing
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:40:47 +0100, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly unused, not even deprecated, these elements bloat the spec,
confuse lay authors (i.e. those not of a computer science background)
and I feel would be better represented by a custom XML vocabulary.
How does
On 23 Mar 2007, at 13:17, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:40:47 +0100, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly unused, not even deprecated, these elements bloat the spec,
confuse lay authors (i.e. those not of a computer science background)
and I feel would be better
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007, at 02:27, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
Just because most ... doesn't bother doesn't mean it ought to be
removed.
So let's not ignore elements because no one uses them.
Ignore them because they are useless.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
1) We
Nicholas Shanks said:
Mostly unused, not even deprecated, these elements bloat the spec,
confuse lay authors (i.e. those not of a computer science background)
and I feel would be better represented by a custom XML vocabulary.
Your method might introduce a lot of stuff a lot of people need,
Nicholas Shanks said:
Browsers that don't natively support XHTML aren't that important anyway.
All of the browsers I have access to (that are currently maintained)
seem to cope with it. This includes Firefox, Opera, Safari, Amaya,
Lynx, Links, OmniWeb, iCab and many more smaller ones based on
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
Coming up with usage examples is trivial, justifying why they deserve
to make the cut into a formal specification is not.
I think the need to distinguish stuff to be typed in by the user from
other text without any need for CSS support is reason enough for kbd.
Once we
On Oct 30, 2006, at 22:33, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
FWIW, I think samp and kbd don't deserve to be in HTML and I
am not
convinced that the use cases for var could not be satisfied by i.
I'm lukewarm on all three, but the cost to keeping these is probably
Henri Sivonen:
On Oct 30, 2006, at 22:33, Ian Hickson wrote:
The CSS community has requested a date or time
element because they want to restyle dates and times according to
locale.
Then the recent request to www-style for styling numbers would be
justified as well. An element for times
Continuing today's flood of emails from me to this list, here's another.
Note: I never bothered to read this thread the first time, but since
Henri has brought to the top of my email client again, I started from
the beginning.
I want to comment on the eight bullets given at:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
• Bullet 7: I think people marking up computer code in HTML are
completely wasting their time. Most sample code I have seen doesn't
bother. e.g. some random OpenGL sample code:
http://developer.apple.com/samplecode/Red_Rocket/listing4.html
Hello,
On 11/14/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On 11/14/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On 11/1/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Christoph,
On 11/1/06, Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On 11/1/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Christoph,
On 11/1/06, Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Henri Sivonen*, 2006-10-29:
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
* HTML has samp, var, and kbd. I use all of them and I am
pretty
Hello,
On 11/14/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On 11/1/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Christoph,
On 11/1/06, Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Henri Sivonen*, 2006-10-29:
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
* metaphorical semantics (the meaning of the things)
* structural semantic (the order of the things)
* purposal semantics (the purpose of the things)
Let me denote some examples:
* metaphorical:
- joke marks something to be funny, sarcastic or zynic
- strong emphasises a content
I thought Joe Clark's opinions and criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML5
might be of interest to people here.
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
I don't agree with everything he said, but he points out a lot of issues
and lists several limitations and suggestions. Some of the
*Henri Sivonen*, 2006-10-29:
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
* HTML has samp, var, and kbd. I use all of them and I am
pretty much the only one who does.
FWIW, I think samp and kbd don't deserve to be in HTML and I am
not convinced that the use cases for var could not be
Hello,On 11/1/06, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:24:17 +0100, Christoph Päper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And HTML5 isn't that semantically pure anyway.
Where can it be improved?To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
I'd say Machine readability.
Sorry to be pedantic but what do you mean machine readable? All
(conforming) HTML
Also sprach James Graham:
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
To keep HTML high enough on the ladder of abstraction [1] to remain a
media-independent markup language.
[1]
...
To get valid markup I must use a table tags if I want my layout to
*function* that way. There is no way to fake it. It took three minutes
to change the tags to table tags and the page functions perfectly now.
This is for the benefit of the users.
Some case of non sequitur, imho.
I am in
Hello,On 10/31/06, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... To get valid markup I must use a table tags if I want my layout to *function* that way. There is no way to fake it. It took three minutes to change the tags to table tags and the page functions perfectly now.
This is for the
On 10/31/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
On 10/31/06, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
To get valid markup I must use a table tags if I want my layout to
*function* that way. There is no way to fake it. It took three minutes
to change the tags
On 10/29/06, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Ban tables for layout.
As long as graphic designers want to use grid-based layouts, telling
them to fake them with floats or, worse, positioning is jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. (And telling them to use display:
table;
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Due in no small part to WHAT WG�s leadership by a strict standardista
Well, the leadership applies different kind of strictness to the
tokenizer/DOM level and to semantics. Personally, I'd like the
tokenizer/DOM part to be a tad stricter and
Subject: [whatwg] Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5
Hi,
I thought Joe Clark's opinions and criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML5
might be of interest to people here.
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
I don't agree with everything he said, but he points out a lot
(Sent both to the WHAT WG list and to Joe Clark himself, because I
assume he doesn't subscribe to the list.)
On Oct 29, 2006, at 06:33, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I thought Joe Clark's opinions and criticisms of the WHATWG and
HTML5 might be of interest to people here.
Hi,
I thought Joe Clark's opinions and criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML5
might be of interest to people here.
http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/
I don't agree with everything he said, but he points out a lot of issues
and lists several limitations and suggestions. Some of the
31 matches
Mail list logo
