W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Some comments on the current draft

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:23:10 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560609231823x1784b08gb051fa27293f847f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis" <benjaminhawkeslewis@hotmail.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

On 9/23/06, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <benjaminhawkeslewis@hotmail.com> wrote:

[ A very good summary of the problems with the existing draft, almost
all of which I have snipped ]

> Too many components seem to be doing the same thing:

> 1. <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, <h4>, <h5>, <h6> and <h> (possibly also
>    <label>, <caption>, and <th>)

I agree -- if it isn't backwards compatible, there really isn't any
need for h#; h by itself is close enough for human compatibility.  (Or
will be, once it is clarified whether the h attaches to its parent or
its following sibling(s).)

And the other three -- are also really the same, except that they
apply to columns/rows/tables/controls instead of sections.  Should
they all be renamed title?

(Other element merges were deleted from my reply)

> 2. The so-called "structural" distinction between block
> and inline elements  ... q/blockquote and code/blockcode

I agree.  It is probably past time to just add a "structure" attribute
which (on many element types) will have a default value.  This would
also solve the "grandchild" problem, in which, say, paragraphs cannot
contain paragraphs, but should be able to contain blockquotes that do.

> ... it's deeply confusing to include elements/attributes
> but then discourage their use, as with the style attribute


> ...  devices may not support the use of in-line styles.

Is this speculation, or are there really devices that ignore inline
style but still support style elements and/or external stylesheets?

> ... there seem to be five ideas about how meaning
> can be conveyed in XHTML:

> 3. XML elements from other namespaces (e.g. from
> MathML, SVG, etc.)  in XHTML+whatever documents

Allowing this is good.  Requiring it would be awful.

If documents in a speciallized field require one specialized mixin
language (or two), that is OK.  If almost every author and almost
every reader has to deal with namespaces, then there won't be much
point to xhtml itself.

Received on Sunday, 24 September 2006 01:23:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:14 UTC