Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru> writes: > JS> I'm not suggesting that @type refines those semantics. I'm suggesting that if you > JS> include (a fragment of) content, it is useful to know the media type of that > JS> content. > Josh, in what are you see difference between "media type" and "semantics" ?? ("Semantics" is often, ironically, a meaningless word in technical discussions ... people seem to have different connotations for it.) Here, I mean: the meaning of the element with respect, and in relation to, other elements of HTML5, only. Is it a block or inline element. How does it interact with an enclosing <pre>. How should it be rendered as an HTML fragment, &c. That's all. Said another way, the presence, lack or particular value of <code type> should not affect the (html-)semantics of <code>. Obviously, having the media-type of the contained code fragment allows the user (agent) to ascribe particular semantics to that contained code fragment. But that's a separate issue from the meaning of the HTML elements. I'm not suggesting that @type refines those (html-)semantics. -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 14:10:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT