W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposing <indent> vs. <blockquote>

From: Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:20:39 +0200
Message-ID: <461E07F7.9020503@design-noir.de>
To: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Mike Schinkel schrieb:
> Dao Gottwald wrote:
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples
>> "markup that expresses semantics is usually preferred to purely 
>> presentational markup" -- So you can't deprecate a semantic element in 
>> favor of a presentational one.
>> "HTML Strikes a balance between semantic expressiveness and practical 
>> usefulness." -- Explicitly removing semantics can't be considered as a 
>> balance. (I neither think <indent> would be useful.)
> I wanted to follow up with these principles which I believe support my 
> proposal, i.e. solve a real problem and give users priority by making it 
> easy for them:
> 
> 
>      Solve Real Problems
> 
> SolveRealProblems </topic/SolveRealProblems>: Changes to the spec should 
> solve actual real-world problems. Abstract architectures that don't 
> address an existing need are less favored than pragmatic solutions to 
> problems that web content faces today. And existing widespread problems 
> /should/ be solved, when possible.

I don't see how "authors miss to define any semantics when indenting" is 
any better than "authors abuse <blockquote>". Prizing the abuse of 
<blockquote> (widespreadness yet to be proved) by adding an explicitly 
presentational element doesn't solve the problem, but manifests another one.

>      Priority of Constituencies
> 
> PriorityOfConstituencies </topic/PriorityOfConstituencies>: In case of 
> conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers 
> over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the 
> user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn 
> should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be 
> given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should 
> be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical 
> reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for 
> multiple constituencies at once.

Introducing presentational markup goes agains "users over authors".

--dao
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 10:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC