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

Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:49:56 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105052312492fff0b0c@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

In some cases having the extra grouping makes processing more onerous.
You can attach ID to an empty element or even a class.

However I believe a goal of HTML should be to maximize the number of
documents it can represent semantically without requiring CSS.

One could say we only need <list>, but not <ol>, <ul> and <nl>, but
that would reduce the number of documents we could represent with
simply HTML.

CSS, ID and class should not be required to represent a document. They
are used to enhance a document with additional information; they
should not be a requirement for most documents. I'm not going to say
all documents because that would be hard to assert, but for me it's a
goal.

<group> doesn't accomplish this unless it implies there is a seperator
between each group. If this is the case it has to represent something
very specific.

I also haven't heard any response to the issue that it creates
problems with XPath and CSS selectors.

Orion Adrian

On 5/23/05, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> 
> On May 23, 2005, at 18:28, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> >>> Grouping things in order to separate is more practical than using
> >>> an empty element construct to split siblings.
> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "more practical". It's not
> >> 'impractical' to have a separator that's empty, is it?
> >
> > For processing it is.
> 
> What kind of processing do you have in mind? (Let's consider the James
> Joyce use case.)
> 
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> 
> 
>
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 19:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:04 UTC