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

RE: Revision efforts (was: The HTML Element)

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:44:56 +0200 (MEST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20042.1055745896@www6.gmx.net>

> I agree XHTML is HTML and
> the root element shouldn't change.

I fully agree. In my opinion, it is not the aim of the XHTML revision to
change each element and/or attribute by force to demonstrate the backwards
incompatibility (maybe I overdo). In fact, it would make much more sense to

 * remove as much elements as possible to reduce complexity,
 * revise all elements to offer a comprehensive document structure,
 * clearly separate structure from presentation/visualization,
 * play non-reinvention safe.

Regarding both HTML as CSS revision efforts, I observe several overlapping
endeavors... there are some opportunities which are -- as far as I know --
redundant.

Why keep some only-formatting elements like <code />, <kbd />, <tt /> (maybe
some of them were thrown away, I am not sure), when CSS offers a much better
implementation? Why even introduce elements like <l /> instead of referring
completely to CSS, e.g. by engaging every developer to use a 'display:
block;' property to paragraphs (although there are even possibilities to get rid of
<p />, too)? CSS is powerful enough.

And, last but not least, to really improve HTML, both WG's (HTML and CSS)
should work together -- that is IMO really necessary. And questions like
renaming the <html /> element are a low prio task...


 Jens Meiert.



> 
> 
> I agree XHTML is HTML and the root element shouldn't change.
> 
> regards,
> Frank Reinthaler
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Holmes [mailto:aholmes84@shaw.ca]
> Sent: Monday, 16 June 2003 13:41
> To: Arthur Wiebe; www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: The HTML Element
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur Wiebe wrote:
> > 
> > I propose that since XHTML is XHTML not HTML, that we change the <html> 
> > element to something that would make more sense. 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned (very generally speaking of course) XHTML *is* 
> HTML; the obvious difference being that it's extensible. It's still 
> hypertext, it's still a markup language. Unless it becomes proposed that 
> UA's distinguish HTML from XHTML via the root element, I see no reason 
> to change it other than for the novelty of it. It will, in my humble 
> opinion, just create unnecessary confusion unless like I mentioned it 
> actually serves a purpose.
> 
> > Why not change it to something like <xhtml>? Or if someone can't stand 
> > that extra letter then we could also change it to <root>?
> 
> No, if it were to be changed at all, <xhtml> would be the way to go. 
> <root> is *far* too general.
> 
> -Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia Post is committed to providing our customers with excellent
> service. If we can assist you in any way please either telephone 13 13 18
or
> visit our website www.auspost.com.au.
> 
> CAUTION
> 
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are privileged and
> confidential information intended for the use of the addressee. The
confidentiality
> and/or privilege in this e-mail is not waived, lost or destroyed if it has
> been transmitted to you in error. If you have received this e-mail in
error
> you must (a) not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it;
> (b) please notify Australia Post immediately by return e-mail to the
sender;
> and (c) please delete the original e-mail.
> 


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91

Mail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com>
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 02:45:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT