W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2000

RE: "Presentational" vs. "Legacy"

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:16:17 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB582455E@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	Jan Roland Eriksson [SMTP:jrexon@newsguy.com]
> 
> This is the curse of xml, and that curse is valid for HTML too.
> There's no sufficiently clear description on what elements stands for,
> and obscure element names helps a lot to muddle up things even more.
> 
	[DJW:]  I don't think this is the real problem; the
	real problem is that most HTML authors think
	WYSIWYG, not structure.

> E.g. DocBook is nice reading if one wants to see a strong contrasting
> example. A vast number of really _understandable_ element names, paired
> with a description of "processing expectations" for each one of them.
> 
	[DJW:] I think docbook like systems would be
	considered too "geeky" by the vast majority of
	content authors (this is a criticism of the authors
	more than anything) - one of the Unix FAQs is how
	to write man pages without understanding how to
	write man pages (and man pages still have a lot of
	more or less physical markup).

	Whilst believing that what consumers need is deep
	structure documents, I think what would best meet
	the wants of most authors is a page description
	language, not a markup language.
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2000 08:22:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT