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

Re: Summary: Naming Issue, Proposals

From: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:51:05 -0300
Message-ID: <8320a9390706281051u582ca75cjb47a4ff112a5c943@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

On 6/28/07, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote:
>
> aloha, jirka!
>
> your response leaves me with a question: why is it a good thing
> that, quote: HTML5 is less canonical then HTML 4.01 because it has much
> more relaxed syntax unquote
>
> how does more relaxed syntax assist anyone excecpt a lazy page
> author or an incompetent authoring tool?  the stricter the
> syntax, the tighter the specification -- one of my objections
> to the HTML5 draft is that there are a lot of assumptions made
> about the capability of Assistive Technologies (ATs) to quote
> implicitly unquote group items of a similar nature, when what
> ATs actually require is EXPLICIT grouping mechanisms...
>
> would you put your steering wheel in the hands of your GPS system,
> if you had one?  i wouldn't put my online life in the hands of
> a collection of loose assumptions and implied structure, which is
> one of the reasons why i have formally objected to using the HTML5
> document as our base document.
>
> it is the ambiguities of past iterations of HTML that must be
> addressed, before NEW elements and attributes are introduced;

I'm with you on this one, this is closely related to what I said in
the rationale of removing the style attribute. Moving forward *should*
require stricter rules instead of loosening them.
It's not just a matter of accessibility or usability, it's a matter of
using HTML as it was intended: a markup language to semantically
describe content.
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 17:51:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT