W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > December 2002

Re: W3C Home page switched to full CSS layout

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 05 Dec 2002 18:24:08 +0100
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: public-evangelist@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1039109049.6849.55.camel@stratustier>
Le jeu 05/12/2002 ŗ 18:04, Jim Ley a ťcrit :
> Dom Wrote:
> 
> >W3C switched today its home page to a full CSS layout instead of the
> >previous table-based one. See:
> >http://www.w3.org/
> 
> I'm very disappointed to see that it begins:
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> 
> Firstly of course, it's XHTML, so SHOULD be being served as
> application/xhtml+xml but is not. How do we evangelise W3C Notes if even
> the W3 ignore the SHOULDs they contain?

It is my intention to make sure this will evolve, thanks to the trick
documented at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/0005.html

But we need some wider experiment before that (as you know, some quite
widespread browsers do not support application/xhtml+xml)
 
> Given that the bad decision has been made, the next thing to disappoint
> is the inclusion of the XML PI against the warning in Appendix C, showing
> this text garbage to people using modern HTML viewers for no reason at
> all (ascii being a subset of utf-8, so it adds nothing) makes it seem
> that to be valid and compliant excludes many modern User Agents.
 
Thanks, that needs to be fixed, indeed!

> Beyond that, in what way is W3C an Acronym?

It is, W3C stands for World Wide Web Consortium. It's not a standard
acronym, but remembers that's the point of using <acronym> and <abbr> is
to help people understanding the underlying text, much more than to
determine if something is an acronym, an abbreviation, a geekism, etc.

> Why are classes being used as
> purely presentational not semantic classes (e.g <span
> class="invisible"> )

Hmm... Aren't you overstating this a bit? Besides "invisible" (which is
indeed presentational, see below), I see: banner, bannerLink, navBlock,
navhead, navlink, etc. that do rely on a semantic structure.

More generally, I could tell you that the fact the class is called
"invisible" doesn't mean anything, but in the mind of the conceptor of
the page. What if I told you that by class="invisible" we meant "links
to skip navigation blocks"?

I agree that's the name is probably not very well chosen, but I do think
that the discussion on class names is moot, since they are only tokens
for computer, not for humans.

Thanks for your comments,

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/INRIA
mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 12:24:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:21 GMT