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

Re: Semantics (was : Formal Recorded Complaint)

From: liorean <liorean@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:25:05 +0200
Message-ID: <cee13aa30708061025w292264ccod6e3dc1e2be8f4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 06/08/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
> > This argument here doesn't solve Ā«real problemsĀ».
>  > We are all in favour of accessibility. And we []
>  > are also all against semantics for the sake of semantics.
>
> No we're not.  Some of us (myself included) believe that
> semantics for semantics [sake] is fundamental to high-
> quality markup.


I think people have a slightly different view on the meaning of
"semantics for the sake of semantics". The way I read that, "semantics
for the sake of semantics" is including semantics without a use case,
without any real world use of the semantics - they are just included
for the purpose of having the semantics in the language. In my book,
that's bad.

I've seen others argue that "semantics for the sake of semantics" goes
for most element, attribute or relations semantics that can be found
in HTML already the language, but I disagree. If you have semantics
with clear use cases, you no longer have "semantics for the sake of
semantics", you have semantics for the sake of making those use cases
possible.




However, since I don't feel I'm really contibuting to the WG by
continuing this discussion, I'll keep quiet on it from here.
-- 
David "liorean" Andersson
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 17:25:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC