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

Re: Semantics/Profiles/Namespaces/Modules Re: XHTML <time> element proposal

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 09:01:38 -0500
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1413617E-0D3D-11D8-B46E-0003934BEBF0@w3.org>


Le dimanche, 2 nov 2003, à 06:07 America/Montreal, Tantek Çelik a écrit 
:
> On 10/30/03 11:29 AM, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org> wrote:
>> Le Jeudi, 30 octo 2003, à 04:00 America/Montreal, Tantek Çelik a écrit
>>> <time> is more semantic than <span class="time">
>>
>> not exactly. More interoperable semantics :)
>
> No, exactly.
> The 'class' attribute, by definition, has no defined semantics.
> A new tag, defined by a new spec, has defined semantics.
> Therefore <time> would be more semantic than <span class="time">

I maintain what I have said because you didn't read what I have written 
and you agree with me in your comments.

>> a <span class="time"></span> could have a lot of semantics as well if
>> there was clearly defined profiles attributes by the HTML WG and IMHO
>> it would be easier to move forward the spec.
> But even *with* all that, my statement above stands, because a tag 
> defined by a specification from a standards organization would be more 
> semantic than an attribute value defined by a web author.


* Semantics is defined by a spec
=================================

I never said attribute value defined by a web author. :) The semantics 
is not defined by the name of the element but ***by the specification 
and the WG***.

The word by itself without definition doesn't define any semantics. And 
that's my point. If you create the mechanism, where you have a set of 
values for an attribute which is *mandatory defined by a spec* it has 
the same value than an element.


* Usability and illusion of usability
======================================

The problem is that
	- every people fluent in english and
	- defending the argument of usability and readability of documents
never think in terms of real people.

	The real usability will be not see the tags at all.
	The second real usability would be to have your elements in your own 
languages.

	I know many computing engineers in France who do not speak english, 
and it's worse in some parts of the population.

	Per se
	<time> is less readable than <temps> for a french
	<time> is less readable than <时间> for a chinese.

A solution to this last problem could be realized if you have 3 levels.

	1. The document itself on the disc with elements in english (for the 
sake of backward compatibility, but just representing bits)

	2. The document displayed in an Authoring tool with your own language. 
(Here a need to define the equivalent names for the document in each 
languages. It could be done by reviewed bindings.)

	3. The rendering in the User Agent. (as usual)

This would improve the usability for those who wants to read the code. 
Maybe I could ask to Daniel if we could demonstrate that in Composer in 
View source mode.

> A big point of simplicity is to actually reduce expressivity ("power") 
> in
> order to increase ease of readability/understanding/use, some might 
> even say accessibility as well.

<time> is not readable for a chinese.
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 09:03:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:09 UTC