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

Re: Semantic versus Structure for XHTML 2.0

From: Antonio Cavedoni <antonio@cavedoni.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:43:17 +0200
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030515184009.0309cfa8@mail.cavedoni.org>
To: www-html@w3.org

Hello everyone,

this is my first post on www-html so some background about me first: my 
name is Antonio Cavedoni and I am an Italian student and Web coder. I'm 23 
and I have a personal website at cavedoni.com. I have been working with the 
Web for over five years now, by writing (X)HTML, XML and CSS and coding in 
JavaScript, PHP, Python and some VBScript. I'm very interested in the 
future of HTML, and of the World Wide Web more in general.

At 11:00 15/05/2003 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>We should put the semantics in an attribute with to extend a set of 
>normative values outside of the spec.
>
>So it will become an extensible mechanism.
>
><p sem="address">
><l sem="person">Haruki Murakami</l>
><l sem="street">Omote-Sando</l>
><l sem="city">  Tokyo</l>
></p>
>
>The values of sem attribute and their meaning will be defined in a 
>external extensible document.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but would it be too hard for people to have 
QNames in XHTML? For example, instead of using your sem="person" attribute, 
how about using something like sem="foaf:person", maybe specifying before 
the foaf: prefix?

Or how about using something like:

<p>
     <foaf:person>Haruki Murakami</foaf:person>
</p>

This way the cost of defining those "extra" semantic elements would be 
completely offloaded from the XHTML core. But I admit not having given it 
much thought, especially since the constructs that I'm proposing are using 
some RDF-like constructs and I know that there's much controversy on this 
issue.

Cheers,

-- 
Antonio
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 12:43:46 GMT

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