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

Re: The Semantic Debate

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:18:41 +0200
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@opera.com>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070507191841.GB8243@greytower.net>

On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:12:09AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > What *exactly* is wrong with providing a new means for Prescriptivism?
> > Surely this would be a "Good Thing", and a move forward?
> 
> It's all well and good to introduce new ideas, but *only* if
> we can get a critical mass of the web using them.

  There's a problem with that cat, to paraphrase MiB. We have,
  from the HTML I analyse - it's part of what /I/ have done the
  last five years - not quite yet reached the point where people
  consistenly use the H1 to H6 header elements.

  It's taken us a decade to achieve, well, very little. But it
  /is/ improving. Slowly - by way of education.

  The argument that we should introduce only such ideas that
  we can get a critical mass from means we can retire and let
  people happily play with their FONTs and MARQUEEs.

  Should we really not try to introduce also such elements
  and techniques that can /inspire/ authors to do more?




> Having yet another W3C HTML spec where if you code to it you don't
> interoperate with the bulk of the web is... well... boring,
> isn't it?

  I dunno. I code to HTML 4.01 Strict, and damned if not most of
  the web doesn't much care WHAT they use as long as it looks
  right.


-- 
 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 19:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC