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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:27 UTC