W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Visual Markup (should HTML die?)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:49:00 -0600
Message-ID: <3E580C6C.8090606@mit.edu>
To: "Todd O'Bryan" <toddobryan@mac.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Todd O'Bryan wrote:

 > but people who think
> content should be preserved would be encouraged to use XML and create 
> documents that would be far more content-rich in terms of markup than 
> any HTML out there now.

The thing that gives meaning to documents written in HTML is that there 
is a specification that defines the meanings of tags so that web sites 
and browsers imbue them with the same meaning.  If a web site makes up 
some tags for a document and the browsers don't know what the tags mean 
(how would they?) then the document is meaningless to the browsers.

> at least we'd 
> be guaranteed that any VML-compatible browser would be able to view 
> their presentation

Why?  How would rendering VML be any easier than rendering CSS?

> I know VML doesn't address the problem of accessibility, but the way 
> HTML is commonly misused doesn't further that laudable goal either.

Yes, but people who care about accessibility _can_ currently use HTML 
properly.  Using "XML" is not an option for the reasons listed above.
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2003 18:49:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT