Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Sure, so long as you use the version with minor punctuation corrections below. On 09/02/2007, at 11:49 PM, Andrew Maben wrote: This is *excellent*! Can I quote you, or will you make it publicly available? Andrew 109b SE 4th Av Gainesville FL 32601 Cell: 352-870-6661 http://www.andrewmab

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Breton Slivka wrote: [everything that needed explaining] Brilliant, Breton. If people could just read that post properly we could kill the thread here and now. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Lachlan Hunt wrote: Designer wrote: I'm going back to my original wishlist of yesterday: Wouldn't it be nice if we could get browsers to interpret ^ (or something) as meaning 'div id=' (and something else for 'class='). Then we could have, xml style code, such as: <^pageborder> <^content>

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

This is *excellent*! Can I quote you, or will you make it publicly available? Andrew 109b SE 4th Av Gainesville FL 32601 Cell: 352-870-6661 http://www.andrewmaben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions." On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:3

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Designer wrote: I'm going back to my original wishlist of yesterday: Wouldn't it be nice if we could get browsers to interpret ^ (or something) as meaning 'div id=' (and something else for 'class='). Then we could have, xml style code, such as: <^pageborder> <^content> blah blah

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Dan Dorman wrote: [snip] Just because I feel or is a better way to specify a heading than , is it reasonable to expect a browser maker to cater to my linguistic whim? And by extension, to anyone's linguistic whim? Browsers don't handle any random tags, browsers work with a previously defined s

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Breton Slivka Sent: Friday, 09 February, 2007 9:18 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics] On 09/02/2007, at 4:14 PM, Geoff Pack wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to t

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

+27 011 455 3112 Mobile: +27 074 109 1908 From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Breton Slivka Sent: Friday, 09 February, 2007 9:18 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re:

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 09/02/2007, at 4:14 PM, Geoff Pack wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to tell me that 'name' means a name, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* is meaningful if a spec says so? Absolutely correct. To a computer, any given string of characters holds exactly the same amount of mea

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to tell me that 'name' means a name, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* is meaningful if a spec says so? Essentially, yes. Although, there's no rule to say it has to be a formal specification (technically it doesn't even have to be written

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Lachlan Hunt wrote: Semantics only become useful when there are tools that make use of them in a useful way. On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So Joe Blogs is meaningless with out a spec to tell me that 'name' means a name, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&* is meaningful if a spec says

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 2/9/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: > No, the semantics come from its definition, not its tag name. If a spec > defines an element with the tag name to be for marking up > a person's name, then that's what it is. The tag name is just an opaque > string that do

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Lachlan Hunt wrote: > No, the semantics come from its definition, not its tag name. If a spec > defines an element with the tag name to be for marking up > a person's name, then that's what it is. The tag name is just an opaque > string that doesn't affect the semantics in any way. It just

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: David Dorward wrote: No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. Surely the semantic meaning is in the actual tag names, not just the fact that they are standardised. It shouldn't matter as long as it's understandable. Anyway, you can always re-use as m

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 09/02/2007, at 2:01 PM, Geoff Pack wrote: David Dorward wrote: Geoff Pack wrote: Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers just improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 and xhtml2? No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-X

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not an expert at any of this, btw. What do XHTML2 and HTML5 give us that we can't do with XML and CSS? Corporate support, to a degree. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

David Dorward wrote: > Geoff Pack wrote: > > Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers > > just improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 > > and xhtml2? > No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. Surely the semantic mea

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

1. Learn XSLT 2. Write a transformation for your markup into HTML 3. Serve your XML as application/xml and put a stylesheet directive in it people are dreaming ... when you have to deal with user-created content and unknown character sets (especially when you are trying to run a site cater

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:54:46AM +1100, Geoff Pack wrote: > Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers just > improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5 and > xhtml2? No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. While you can styl

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote: > On the other hand, browser support is fairly restricted and can > be buggy, especially if you plan to use any DOM Scripting/Ajax > type stuff. Well, yes, but it's a lot better than XHTML 2 support ;) > For real-world usage, you're better off doing the > transformat

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Appearing as: Para 1 end of para2 Start of Para 2... foo This is what CSS is for: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200702/new_css_properties_in_safari/ Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ***

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must be drunk too, if you are agreeing with me! (Apparently.) The example that I was trying to describe went more like: Para 1 Start of Para 2 ... end of para 2 foo Appearing as: Para 1

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson > > The physical structure of a page will often be entirely > > different to the > > logical structure > > This is true, of course, but at the end of the day both versi

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 8 Feb 2007, at 15:49:00, Designer wrote: Forgive my complete lack of knowledge here, but can you (or someone) point me to details on where I can "just transform it into html 4.01 (or xhtml) in the browser"? It's a serious question - I'd love to code/markup in xml.

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Hi, On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have to read any dictionary or the spec to agree with you > Geoff. Structure in and of itself IS semantic to an extent. I think you are taking that too far - imagine trying to create the look of a newspaper on the web, wit

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:49:00PM +, Designer wrote: > Forgive my complete lack of knowledge here, but can you (or someone) > point me to details on where I can "just transform it into html 4.01 (or > xhtml) in the browser"? It basically boils down to: 1. Learn XSLT 2. Write a transformat

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Often it isn't even the end of a word! Michael, you're making that terrible mistake of making judgments based on no experience of physical documents. This /never/ happens. The physical structure of a page will often be entirely different to the logical structure;

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: Designer wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if we could get browsers to interpret ^ (or something) as meaning 'div id=' (and something else for 'class='). Then we could have, xml style code, such as: <^pageborder> <^content> blah blah MUCH more readable, and

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:00 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics] > > On 2/8/07, Geof

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Aja Lorenzo Lapus wrote: Isn't XHTML2 the one being endorsed by W3C and not HTML5? HTML5 is being formulated at WHATWG, AFAIK, Aja, you're completely correct. I'm immensely relieved and ashamed of my bad research at the same time. On the XML + XSLT issue - well XML is completely extensible a

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Designer wrote: > Wouldn't it be nice if we could get browsers to interpret ^ (or > something) as meaning 'div id=' (and something else for 'class='). > Then we could have, xml style code, such as: > <^pageborder> > <^content> > blah blah > > > MUCH more readable, and encourag

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Isn't XHTML2 the one being endorsed by W3C and not HTML5? HTML5 is being formulated at WHATWG, AFAIK, On 2/8/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am a bigger fan of XHTML 2, from what I have seen - it seems to me more like a sober re-design of HTML with the benefit of hindsight. HTML

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Designer wrote: <^pageborder> <^content> blah blah Looks like the current proposal for HTML 5 to me (except it doesn't have ^). Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Uns

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Mike Wilson wrote: Home About Contact ... Chuck Norris Jack Bauer This would tend to convey a page section (the side bar) that's been divided into 3 smaller portions, hence the

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

I am a bigger fan of XHTML 2, from what I have seen - it seems to me more like a sober re-design of HTML with the benefit of hindsight. HTML 5, on the other hand, seems to be more about making a huge list of specific elements to tag on to HTML. Of course, the problem is that the full potential

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

On 2/8/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Div doesn't have any semantics, it's a structural element only. And since when does structure not have meaning? I don't have to read any dictionary or the spec to agree with you Geoff. Structure in and of itself IS seman

RE: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Div doesn't have any semantics, it's a structural element only. The 4.01 spec says: "The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for adding structure to documents." [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#ed

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Geoff Pack wrote: section == div (short for division, btw - its not semantically empty.) Div doesn't have any semantics, it's a structural element only. Section, however, is semantic and will have a practical purpose, beyond being just another div-like element for styling. When used in conj

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

enough for pretty much everything we need to do with it. It's done. If you want more semantics, use xml and xsl. more machine readability can a good thing check out microformats.org - this is something people are already using in the real world to mark up stuff in a way so that mach

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

Technically, you can use the new tags today, and style them with CSS. The only drawback is your document won't validate. The only thing that needs to change is the DTD you validate against. I've seen examples of fully xhtml 2.0 sites working in IE6 via javascript and css. We're just waiting

Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

My, what the little hath wrought. On 2/7/07, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Some of the new tags in html5 or xhtml2 seem nice, but quite frankly, not worth the bother. Maybe I'm just getting old, I must be young, because I'm not tired of hearing of new tags. Let's keep in mind, anywa

[WSG] is html done? [was semantics]

section == div (short for division, btw - its not semantically empty.) separator == hr We can argue about semantics for ever (and are apparently quite willing to do so), but what is the practical benefit of changing these? How long until the changes are implemented in most browsers and you can s