W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: FAQ - where are the FAQs for this list?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:30:21 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200202230930.g1N9UL402827@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> For most people (IMO), this is a tag: <tag>

I think for most people, this is a tag: <tag attrribute="xxxx"></tag> or 
attribute="xxxx".

I'm not sure to what extent this is the result of people's
misunderstanding HTML when they actually see the source, or simply looking
at from a WYSIWYG perspective, in which case you highlight an area of
text and apply a "tag" to it, in which case it doesn't really matter
that <b></b> has no attributes, <font ...></font> does have attributes,
and alt="xxx" can only be applied to an image; they all add an attribute
to part of the image of the document.  It's a slight nuisance that some
newer browsers don't allow you to do this to arbitrary text, rather than
properly nested text.   In this case, you can treat alt as an element
that immediately surrounds the image element.

I would say that, in "web design" terminology, tag almost never means
tag in the XML or SGML sense, unless you mean a turn bold on or turn
bold off "tag".

One secondary consequence of the attribute-element confusion is that people
joining the XML bandwagon almost always design attribute free schemas!
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 08:41:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT