W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > December 2002

Re: W3C Home page switched to full CSS layout

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 05 Dec 2002 18:24:08 +0100
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: public-evangelist@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1039109049.6849.55.camel@stratustier>
Le jeu 05/12/2002 ŗ 18:04, Jim Ley a ťcrit :
> Dom Wrote:
> >W3C switched today its home page to a full CSS layout instead of the
> >previous table-based one. See:
> >http://www.w3.org/
> I'm very disappointed to see that it begins:
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> Firstly of course, it's XHTML, so SHOULD be being served as
> application/xhtml+xml but is not. How do we evangelise W3C Notes if even
> the W3 ignore the SHOULDs they contain?

It is my intention to make sure this will evolve, thanks to the trick
documented at

But we need some wider experiment before that (as you know, some quite
widespread browsers do not support application/xhtml+xml)
> Given that the bad decision has been made, the next thing to disappoint
> is the inclusion of the XML PI against the warning in Appendix C, showing
> this text garbage to people using modern HTML viewers for no reason at
> all (ascii being a subset of utf-8, so it adds nothing) makes it seem
> that to be valid and compliant excludes many modern User Agents.
Thanks, that needs to be fixed, indeed!

> Beyond that, in what way is W3C an Acronym?

It is, W3C stands for World Wide Web Consortium. It's not a standard
acronym, but remembers that's the point of using <acronym> and <abbr> is
to help people understanding the underlying text, much more than to
determine if something is an acronym, an abbreviation, a geekism, etc.

> Why are classes being used as
> purely presentational not semantic classes (e.g <span
> class="invisible"> )

Hmm... Aren't you overstating this a bit? Besides "invisible" (which is
indeed presentational, see below), I see: banner, bannerLink, navBlock,
navhead, navlink, etc. that do rely on a semantic structure.

More generally, I could tell you that the fact the class is called
"invisible" doesn't mean anything, but in the mind of the conceptor of
the page. What if I told you that by class="invisible" we meant "links
to skip navigation blocks"?

I agree that's the name is probably not very well chosen, but I do think
that the discussion on class names is moot, since they are only tokens
for computer, not for humans.

Thanks for your comments,

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 12:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:32 UTC