W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Use cases

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 00:57:22 -0500
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110102055722.GD2706@mercury.ccil.org>
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis scripsit:

> The *whole* point? Says who?

An exaggeration for effect.  Obviously scripting has many purposes.

> That's not what Netscape and Sun thought they were doing:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070916144913/http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease67.html

Damned if I can make out what they thought they were doing.  In any case,
historical origin is not current utility.

> Nor are all scripts trusted.

Not all content can be trusted either, for that matter.

> If you want to maximize the RESTful characteristics of the (world
> wide) web, do not rely on code-on-demand facilities for your default
> representations.

I might say with equal justice: do not rely on the facilities of Grade-A
browsers in general.  See my home page.

> My objection is to substituting arbitrary vocabularies for recognized
> vocabularies, not to namespaces. My only essential point about
> namespaces was that they are not some sort of fairy dust that cures
> the RESTless ills of arbitrary vocabularies.

Whatever you feel is wrong with arbitrary vocabularies, I agree that
namespaces make them only trivially easier.

> First, we should be specifying meaning not behavior so that user agents
> can apply behaviors suitable for their purposes.

I am reluctant to call "button" or even "p" *meaning*.  Abstract behavior,
if you like.  But if I were marking up this email for *meaning*, I would
probably use a "counterargument" element rather than a "p" element for
this paragraph.

> But text/html already has an way to do that: use elements and attributes
> that carry semantics via a commonly recognized vocabulary. It doesn't
> need another.

IOW, HTML has changed from a presentation vocabulary to an abstract
behavior vocabulary.  In neither case is it semantic.

> I see no value in making semantics indirect via CBS. 

Why is it less valuable than making presentation indirect via CSS?
The two are on all fours.

-- 
Not to perambulate                 John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
    the corridors                  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
during the hours of repose
    in the boots of ascension.       --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
Received on Sunday, 2 January 2011 05:57:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 2 January 2011 05:57:53 GMT