Re: Layout tables

> What other common artifacts of contemporary web pages fail to
> be adequately represented in XHTML 1.x? What further semantic
> distinctions might be usefully captured?

1) Buttons - passing variables to form URLs is limited - what if I
have a straight link that uses no variables, fo example GET
./default?xhtml11 I could quie easily mark it up using <a href="">
i.e. a conventional HyperText link, but it does not convey the fact
that I am passing variables to a script... I want to be able to use
buttons outside of forms, and there should be more control over how
they are rendered - I like the Amaya approach.

2) <hr /> and new context. There is no way to represent that in a
device independant reliable manner.

3) Metadata - there are no standard ways of creating your own link
relationships ala the profile attribute in <head>. The <meat> and
<link> elements will start to become abused: as they have already.

4) Navigational elements. <map> is still, in my mind, a means of
denoting an image map... I don't think of it as a generic navigational
element. Something like <nav> would be better, IMO.

5) Alternative representations. How do you say "well, I have this
sound available as WAV, MP3, and AU" all in one link? You can't, which
is very frustrating. I tapplies to images too: I want to be able to
say in the markup that this GIF image has an SVG alternative generated
on the fly from some XML source by the XSLT transformation at X,
reliant on the CSS sheet at ..." and so on, i..e complex relationships
as well maintained first party assertions.

I think that text/html has had its day, but I'm very worried about the
transition to application/xhtml+xml

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .

Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 11:48:02 UTC