W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:02:40 +0300
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <372D34F9-B726-4081-981C-2FFAD4CAAB68@iki.fi>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Aug 31, 2009, at 14:46, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 14:38, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Now I'm confused by your argument. Why do *recipients* need  
>>>> anything more than the processing requirements given by HTML5?
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Not everything is a processing requirement (for instance, when an  
>>> element carries certain semantics which do not actually affect  
>>> processing in a UA).
>> What are semantics that don't trigger any observable processing in  
>> any UA good for? When you say "recipient", do you mean a person or  
>> a piece of software?
>
> It might trigger observable processing in *some* recipients.

People or software?

> Are you trying to say that we should remove all "semantic" elements  
> if they do not have precise UA processing requirements?


I'm trying to say that "semantics" that don't trigger any observable  
effects in any class of UA are mere styling/scripting hooks, and mere  
styling/scripting hooks are an authoring-side convention--not a  
something that implementors of receiving software need to be concerned  
with beyond supporting generic styling/scripting mechanisms.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 12:03:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC