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

Re: Use cases

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 18:14:13 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgQXFJy+Ag0xfOfhKzkoduJAywTG+bA_sw9B-N@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:57 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>> Nor are all scripts trusted.
>
> Not all content can be trusted either, for that matter.

HTML plus JS is more risky than just HTML by itself.

>> 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.

Yes. You can use the user-agent header to serve simpler even simpler
representations
to known bad browsers. Compare:

http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/

> 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.

If you want to use that language, you're on your own, but if you
prefer, HTML does not need another way to express "abstract behavior".

>> I see no value in making semantics indirect via CBS.
>
> Why is it less valuable than making presentation indirect via CSS?

CSS encourages semantic (or "abstract behavior") markup, protecting
the uniform interface.

CBS would discourage it by making it an extra step, damaging the
uniform interface.

Witness all the inaccessible junk built out of divs.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 2 January 2011 18:14:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 2 January 2011 18:14:47 GMT