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

Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

From: Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:19:07 +0000
Message-ID: <ad9d9dc0912010919w3be26960l5a7dfbf3b1b19bab@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2009/12/1 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk> wrote:
>> Even though a graphic
>> designer specifies the same fonts and so forth for the captioning of
>> both figures and tables, that doesn't make them semantically
>> equivalent.
>
> True, it's not an automatic equivalence.  It is, however, a strong
> indication of such.  It also indicates that slicing the semantics any
> thinner than that may be counterproductive - if designers aren't
> currently making any effective distinction between them, what makes
> you think they *want* to make such a distinction in HTML?  Styling is
> often a *very* good indication of the granularity of classification
> for the average person, and it's a mistake to go strongly against this
> unless there are strong technical reasons for doing so.
>

Why should the specification only consider what visual designers want
or will use? I can think of a number of scenarios where a granularity
of classification much finer than that required for visual
presentation is needed. Extracting data from HTML for incorporation in
other resources, and meeting the needs of assistive technologies to
present a summary of a document's structure, are two that spring
immediately to mind.

Negards,

Nick.

-- 
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC