- From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:19:43 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Is it worth separating the issues of fallback behavior and extracting element semantics? It strikes me as unlikely that in practice components *can* be used if you need to target legacy browsers, and that fallback won't mean much unless legacy browsers are specifically targeted because proper behavior will involve different control flow paths (hooking up the right events, etc..). Sorry, if I'm making a leap here or just being stupid. It seems like if you remove the legacy UAs issue, it opens up a bunch of other options for extracting semantics (e.g. for indexing or accessibility). On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2012, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote: >> > >> > So what happens in browsers that don't support components? Or in >> > search engines or other data analysis tools that are trying to extract >> > the semantics from the page? >> >> Elements with custom tag-names would have EXACTLY SAME semantic (as for >> core HTML5 semantics) meaning as a common container (SPAN or DIV) with a >> class. No more and no less. > > If it's purely stylistic, then using <div> and not having semantics is > fine. Stylistic components should just be invoked from the CSS layer. > > Components that are not purely stylistic, e,g, things like form controls > or data (tables or graphical), need to have fallback semantics. Those are > the ones that appear in the markup. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 17:20:15 UTC