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

Re: infix separators (vs. exfix wrappers) [was: Re: About XHTML 2.0]

From: Justin Wood (Callek) <116057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:34:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4293C819.7010509@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
CC: www-html@w3.org

To begin, I agree with, and appreciate how verbose and articulate Al was 
on his comments.

Citing only a portion of Al's comments below, when HTML was first 
introduced, few[er] people had use for the web, and once use started to 
spread, technologies for visual presentation (which helped attract the 
average user) began to emerge.

The fact that the less containerized model began to appear, and appeal 
to [young?] web-authors and visitors to those website alike, was not 
only an additional allure to the technology world, but was also enhanced 
by the UA's which were (and continue to be) present in the world at that 

Now with more and more people having immense need and use for 
web-traversal, and technologies such as CSS, and XML continuing to be 
developed and support increasing, catering to the 
semantic/presentational separation is a requirement.

I agree that <separator> has its use in "quickened page writing" and 
perhaps a doctype could be established to support this, but for the main 
purpose of the web as I see it, in its semantic nature, a grouping of 
what is to be separated is to be favored.  Such that, the author of a 
page needs to determine "why" he needs a separator, and what it 
separates, rather than simply tossing one in, due to utterance.

Though as I feel I have began to utter (and tangent) myself, I will end 
my addition to this thread.
~Justin Wood (online nickname: Callek)

Al Gilman wrote:

> But in defence of the path HTML WG has taken, ISO HTML tried to
> impose a fully containerized model and the world yawned.
> Al
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 00:34:33 UTC

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