Re: <q>

Yep - knew someone was bound to miss the point.

In the usage I mentioned the semantics of <q> is exactly defined within the
context between the server and a specific web application's client-side
Javascript. This is in effect an entirely distinct namespace unrelated to
the "Semantic Web" (whichever that is). HTML through web browsers is and
always will be (for the foreseeable future) a delivery mechanism for
applications. Web application developers should and will make pragmatic use
of the strongest capabilities of the platform, independent of dogmatic
concerns.

Your point would be valid if the semantics were meant to be global. That is
not the case. I was certain a part of this audience is unclear on that
point.

To pick apart your analogy, yes - English is meaningless (not useful) if all
of your audience speaks Spanish, only some speak English, and you want the
entire audience to understand what you say. Web application developers need
to be practical, not dogmatic.


On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net> wrote:

> 2008/10/25 Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
>
>> Have to admit, the <q> tag is one of favorites. Since it has no meaningful
>> overt use (because of past IE),
>
>
> That's like saying because some Spanish people don't speak English, all
> English is meaningless.
>
> The fact that IE previously failed to implement the <q> tag properly (or at
> all) does not mean it has no overt meaningful use. Its meaning is explicitly
> defined in the specs, and it is well implemented by other browsers.
>
>
>> it makes a handy container for data to be transformed to something else by
>> script.
>
>
> Please consider using <div> or <span> instead - if not for your sake, then
> for everyone else's.
>
> Sam
>