W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2002

Re: My comments on the XHTML 2 draft.

From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Date: 12 Sep 2002 16:00-0700
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <XHTML2-stuff@d20020912.etan.wexler>

Lachlan Cannon wrote to <www-html@w3.org> on 6 September 2002 in "Re: My
comments on the XHTML 2 draft."
(<mid:3D7853FA.4070502@members.evolt.org>):

[about avoiding the 'class' attribute to indicate the kind of section]
> Because you're not denoting a "class" of content, you're denoting a 
> "type", IMO.

I am failing to understand the difference.  An example (other than the
issue at hand) would help me.

> Also, I thought that the class attribute was for [authors] to add
> their own  groupings, when they needed them. Surely the standards
> themselves could include more specific ways of denoting elements.

Yes, a specification could offer distinct element types.

> > I fail to see how the type of section is metadata.
> 
> It's data telling you what that section is about... data about data.

Okay, but from a certain perspective, all tags are metadata: "This
sequence of characters is an element", "This element is a paragraph",
"This element is disabled".  Data about data.

> > <quote><em>All right, <em>Dad</em>, I get the point.</em></quote>
> 
> Say it out loud. You don't (or I don't anyway) start saying a sentence 
> with emphasis, and then emphasise something inside that emphasis. An 
> emphasis should be a small point, not an entire sentence.

I respectfully disagree.  I did say it out loud and the markup is
appropriate.  I spoke the whole sentence at a volume higher than my
usual volume.  The extra-emphasized word was louder still and was
slightly drawn-out.

-- 
Etan Wexler <mailto:ewexler@stickdog.com>
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 17:09:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT