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

Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Rimantas Liubertas <ic@rimantas.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 01:22:59 +0300
Message-ID: <42910643.2060305@rimantas.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Orion Adrian wrote:
> This assumes that one, you want a horizontal line. Some seperators are
> represented by lines of stars or tilde's.

This is no problem at all.

> My rule of thumb is I should be able to write a document in HTML
> without any CSS at all and still get the semantic meaning of my
> document accross.

This is the only problem I see. however, "lightweight separator"
is, uh, lightweight, so losing it without CSS won't be bigger loss
than losing everything else you get with CSS.

> Above you're using CSS to create semantic meaning using presentation.
> So how would you represent a light seperator without CSS in a user
> agent that doesn't support it? How would you represent it to a blind
> user?
 > The rules of thumb I use are a) does this semantic element need to be
 > conveyed to a blind person to get the meaning of the document. b) can
 > this element be described in an aural way if it's visual or visual if
 > it's aural. The strong element passes that test, but bold does not.
 > Orion Adrian

There was similar discussion on WHATWG, and
http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/04-19-steven-XHTML2-XForms/ (search for
HR) was given as example.

I created http://rimantas.com/bits/hr/nohr.html as analog without
using hr. I think it is still OK with aural stylesheet (lightweight
semantics have been transferred to class attribute), but well,
it fails in CSS off scenario.

I wouldn't say you convinced me that separate element for separator is 
needed, but I have doubts now, and some food to think.
So far the only weak argument would be that semantic meaning of this
element is so light it is ok to loose it...

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 22:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:10 UTC