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

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

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:03 +0200 (EET)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0512081103390.13265@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, David Woolley wrote:

> I would say that document is a particularly bad name because all true
> markup language files are documents.

For some definition of "document". In some circles, "document" implies
documenting something and an attempt at factual correctness; calling
a poem, a comic strip, an image gallery, or an empry questionnaire 
a "document" would not be quite adequate. We use the word "document"
in a broad sense, however, in many contexts just because we need
a word for all kinds of stuff we work with in word processing,
in web authoring, etc.

> As such, I'd say that there was an
> implied <document></document> around every piece of XML.

Why would you do that?

Maybe a well-designed markup language would have a finite collection
of possible top-level elements, so that the name of the root element
(to use SGML and XML terminology) would classify "documents".

The name <html> is inappropriate partly because it suggests compatibility
that isn't meant to exist.

If we think we need _a_ name for the root element, I would vote
for <root>. It says nothing about content or meaning, and that's a great 
asset. It's short, and it's technobabble, corresponding to the nature
of the _concept_.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 09:12:20 GMT

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