W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same,

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:36:27 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d310501100036ca873a1@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:36:39 +1300, Matthew Thomas <mpt at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Jim Ley wrote:
> > ...
> > Current web applications use HTML almost exclusively as a rendering
> > language, they're not even using the document semantics available in
> > HTML, it's just script and CSS dangling off of the HTML elements you
> > need.
> 
> Sure. If Web applications were semantic they'd need HTML block elements
> such as <login>, <register>, <order>, and <post>. 

We have all agreed HTML only has document semantics so
web-applications can never do more.  However I was meaning they don't
use strong/em, or p, or hn etc. So the HTML that is rendered is almost
semantically empty for example most web-mail products don't put the
title of the email in an Hn, this is what GMail thinks

<DIV id=tt><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><B>Re: [whatwg] Web Forms
2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same,</B></SPAN>

The GMail page I'm typing on contains layout tables, span, div, b, 
this frame doesn't even contain a title.   Web-applications can never
with an HTML base contain web-application level semantics - a good
reason why we shouldn't be looking to take HTML beyond any sort of
stop-gap measures, especially when XUL/XAML and more already exist to
provide application level mark-up.  They could however carry web
document semantics to aid non visual understanding, the fact they
don't isn't something that needs more specs to help.

> If the What-WG's work increases the average fraction of any particular
> application that is written in HTML or XHTML rather than script and/or
> arbitary XML, we do benefit. 

Could you please clarify who the we are?  and why we benefit, for
example if the we is web application authors, then you need to talk in
terms of reduce development cost,  or reduced testing cost, or better
result to our users etc.  (I think this is very tough given the
IE/scripting issue.)  Or if it's web-application consumers, how do
they benefit.  You're also missing one of the elements, non-arbitrary
XML - For example Bill McCoy's RSS reader won't be consuming arbitrary
XML.

> > If the WHAT WG's aim is to discourage what they call street HTML,
> 
> No member of What-WG has called anything "street HTML", on the WG's
> site or (except at your insistent prompting) on this mailing list.

I don't believe I ever used the term before this post, I don't like
it, I don't think it's a good description of what's out there.  With a
WhatWG member using it and understanding it though,  I decided it was
part of the vocabulary and I should use it, maybe you've got my posts
confused with someone else?

Jim.
Received on Monday, 10 January 2005 00:36:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC