- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:36:02 -0700
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:41 AM, Murray Maloney wrote: > > >> >> * Good practice: Separation of content, presentation, interaction >> A specification SHOULD allow authors to separate content from both >> presentation and interaction concerns. >> >> (Covered by Mostly Semantic Markup, currently disputed.) > > This design principle is one that I can live with, whereas "Mostly > Semantic Markup" > is not one that I can live with. > > I can support a design principle that calls for separation. This is > the same principle > that has been at play since the earliest days of markup -- GML, > SGML, XML. > This is one of the key design principles that led to the creation > of markup. > > However, the phrase "Mostly Semantic Markup" is overloaded. After > all, <b> > has semantics and it facilitates for the separation of content and > presentation. > But I suspect that the proponents of "Mostly Semantic Markup" > aren't saying > that they want more <b>-like elements in HTML. I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't <b> traditionally considered more presentational than semantic? And doesn't it put presentation in the content? Seems like both principles lean against adding more <b>- like elements. And it seems to me like we want to avoid <b>-like elements. So I'm not sure what the difference is. > > How about we all agree to the Good practice that is codified in > WEBARCH > and forget about "Mostly Semantic Markup"? > > Regards, > > Murray > > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:36:30 UTC