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

Re: (code, sample output and keyboard/device input <code>, <samp>, <kybd>) part of my review of 3.12 Phrase elements

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:51:33 -0500
Message-Id: <BA12ADD2-DBF5-4771-8F66-EEE7DC95D215@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>


On Jul 20, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

>> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> As a human, sure, I can read that source code and interpret your  
> intended meaning.
>
> [....]
>
>
> Ignoring the syntax errors and assuming the code was rendered in  
> purple, sure, you can give the browser guidance in how to convey  
> the semantics of your class name to the user using stylesheets.   
> But that doesn't mean the browser has understood the meaning of the  
> class name itself, or that the class name carries any particular  
> meaning.
>
>

It certainly does mean the class name carries meaning. If my meaning,  
as the author, was to denote C++ syntax code. And you as the user  
understand that purple text as C++ code. Then the class name carries  
that particular meaning. Authors do not communicate to user agents  
(ever). Ultimately all authors communicate to users. If the user  
agent has not gotten in our way,  the the browser has understood all  
it needs to understand of the class name to render it in purple, then  
the user agent has sufficiently understood the meaning of the class  
name. And the user will sufficiently understand the meaning conveyed  
by the author. No prior agreement necessary (well, except for HTML  
and CSS and a very understanding parser that overlooks my errors).

>> Would you prohibit authors from writing a document like this?  
>> Unless I get prior approval from some microformat politburo, I'm  
>> prohibited from writing a document like this? Would I be purged  
>> for this markup? :-)
>
> What?  No!  I do not understand your point.  All I'm saying is that  
> class names by themselves don't convey any particular semantics  
> without an agreement of their meaning (either explicit or implied),  
> and that nothing useful can be done with them by default, beyond  
> the presentation and behaviour specified by the author.

No, what you're saying in a long-winded way is that  class names do  
not convey any particular semantics, without a prior agreement   
EXCEPT to humans. However, if an author wants to communicate  
specifically to humans, then a class name does convey meaning. Which  
is all I was trying to say.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2007 01:51:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:47 UTC