W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > June 2009

Re: [whatwg] Section 3 semantics and structure

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC)
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0906052153180.1648@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

(-whatwg to reduce cross-posting)

On Sat, 2 May 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
> In section three, you mix structure and semantics, but the two are not 
> necessarily compatible.

How are they not?

> For instance, we see an introduction to the Document, and then 
> immediately proceed into a description of Documents in the DOM. Frankly, 
> I don't see how a description of the DOM fits either structure or 
> semantics. To me, structure would be the structure of the markup in the 
> document, and the semantics would be the, well, it's hard to say what it 
> would be, you apply semantics to elements, such as section and header. 
> Whatever it is, it's not DOM related.

Would it help if I renamed the section something like "HTML documents"?

> Perhaps if the intro section was filled in, we would have an 
> understanding of what you mean by structure, and semantics. Right now, 
> though, I see what is basically a bucket of information, somehow grouped 
> under this heading, perhaps because it doesn't fit anywhere else.

That's more or less accurate, yes.

> Now you do a nice description of what you consider as semantics in 
> section 3.3.1, and I would expect this, then, to be followed by a 
> listing of the elements, but again, there's the DOM. There's no cohesive 
> pattern to the document, especially when the different document levels 
> are mixed so haphazardly.

I've tried several ways of organising the document; unfortunately it is 
non-trivial because of the weird inter-relations between each section. I'm 
not a big fan of the current scheme but it is better than what we had 
before. If you have any concrete suggestions for better organisation 
schemes please do let me know.

> I, as a web developer/designer, am not really interested in the user 
> agent aspects of the specs. Another person who is a designer, may not be 
> interested in the developer or UA aspects. But all of us are forced to 
> go through material addressed to all three audiences just to find the 
> information we need.

Actually if you want to hide the implementation-specific stuff you can 
switch to the alternative stylesheet "Author documentation only".

> I, a designer interested in learning about the new semantic elements, 
> have to wade through sections on the DOM and security, including 
> cookies, because I'm not sure when I'll be getting to the bits I need. 
> There's no clear demarcation between audiences in the document.

If you want to see all the text but have it clearely demarked, you can 
enable the "Highlight implementation requirements" alternative stylesheet.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 22:01:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:25 UTC