> -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Faaberg > > On 7/3/04 11:38 PM "Geoff Deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent > this out: > > > It is better practice to stop using such elements, especially > when there are > > other elements that serve the same purpose, but are more > semantically correct > > and accessible. > > Would someone please post a URL to a rousing, thorough, authoritative > article re: "semantically correct" coding? >
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/documentation/reference/html/ch01.html#S1- BASIC-CONCEPTS http://www.brainstormsandraves.com/archives/2003/10/07/semantics/ Hope that helps a bit. Don't confuse it with http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/, which has the same, but different context. What I mean is that Semantic Web, in that context, is looking at the same problem with a different plan of attack. But my problem with that is that the only practical way to deliver RDF and OWL is to have your content in XML anyway, and if that is the case, then you should be able to deliver more semantically rich content, but HTML is not as semantically rich a container as RDF and OWL. The W3C are making it exceedingly difficult for the average developer to produce semantically compliant web sites. Seems the only way to do it is with CMSs or from XML Frameworks and Application Servers like Cocoon. Basically, the life of the web developer just become more challenging. Geoff ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
