- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:02:44 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Dao Gottwald wrote: > Mike Schinkel schrieb: > > I don't see how "authors miss to define any semantics when indenting" > is any better than "authors abuse <blockquote>". This is similar to how, in relational database it is well know that it is better to have a NULL value in a field, meaning "unknown" than to have a "0" value in a field but without knowledge if the 0 was entered or was just the default. > Prizing the abuse of <blockquote> (widespreadness yet to be proved) by > adding an explicitly presentational element doesn't solve the problem, I disagree. > but manifests another one. Such as? >> 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". I don't comprehend your interpretation. Users *currently* get no value from most semantic markup. And even if they did, better than they would get no semantics than incorrect semantics. BTW, you made me realize that "Priority of Constituencies" principle does not address the generally orthogonal constituencies of robots and agents. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 06:03:05 UTC