W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2005

Re: [Structure Module] Renaming the <html> element to more semantic name

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:48:07 +0100
Message-ID: <20051207164807.s6c4pv4uybwoowo8@webmail.annevankesteren.nl>
To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>

Quoting Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>:
>> Spelled words are empty and the element "document" has not more 
>> sense  than element "html" (specifically after 15 years of history 
>> by a social  group).
>
> So, basically, the <html> element should stay for historical reasons? 
>  Isn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be breaking most of this history and not 
> be  backward-compatible anyway? Why does the 15 years of history with 
> <html>  apply to XHTML 2.0 if none of the other (excuse my language) 
> rubbish from  older HTML specifications doesn't?

You must have missed the introduction of the "img" element in the 
latest draft,
that the "a" element is still here, that "h1-h6" are still there without a
story on how they interact with new markup, that "accesskey" came back with a
new name, etc.

However, let me note that the html element defined in XHTML 2.0 is not 
backwards
compatible, it has a new namespace for non obvious reasons. And so do html:em,
html:strong, html:var, html:code, html:blockquote, etc. html:q was renamed to
xhtml2:quote and I'm still not sure why that was done. User agents should be
free to style to style the html:q element as they wish, including styling it
with quotes. They should of course let authors overwrite that particular
behavior (which is done now and then). And there are many more issues 
which I'm
all saving up for when it reaches last call.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 15:48:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT