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

Re: extracting semantics Re: Namespace

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:58:28 +0100
Message-ID: <469DD634.7030004@cam.ac.uk>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 18 juil. 2007 à 02:57, Robert Burns a écrit :
>> Earlier I gave the example of changing the semantics  of <small>  from 
>> meaning "presentationally small text" to meaning "legal descriptions 
>> and other disadvantages" With that, "the likelihood that it will be 
>> interpreted and presented as intended by an implementation" falls 
>> dramatically.
> 
> Indeed a semantics extractor looking at the version of HTML
> 
>     <p>Life is <small>tough</small>.</p>
> 
> 
> * HTML 4.01
>   SMALL: Renders text in a "small" font.
> * HTML 5.01
>   The small element represents small print (part of a document often 
> describing legal restrictions, such as copyrights or other 
> disadvantages), or other side comments.
> 
> 
> Then I'm an implementer of a semantics extractor. What are my 
> implementation strategies?

For those of us who believe that practical concerns outweigh theoretical 
possibilities, it would be much more persuasive if those who are 
claiming that slight changes in the definition of e.g. <small> are 
problematic could produce examples of existing tools that are affected 
by this kind of change and examples from the public web of the kind of 
documents for which the processing, by those tools, would be different 
in significant ways between HTML4 and HTML5.


-- 
"Mixed up signals
Bullet train
People snuffed out in the brutal rain"
--Conner Oberst
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 08:59:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT