W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: The Semantic Debate

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 11:54:49 -0700
Message-ID: <463F75F9.6060800@sicking.cc>
To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org

John Foliot wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I would not be opposed to adding a 'role' attribute, as long as we
>> also support adding semantics the way it's done before. 
> 
> And how is that Jonas?  Outside of the "copyright" example, can you point to
> another instance of how semantic meaning has been ascribed to a word or
> string (sentence)?

Not sure what you mean. You gave 3 examples right below, "sarcasm", 
"joke" and "critical". I believe "ship" has also been mentioned on this 
list.

> Can you show me an example of emotion or semantic nuance
> "in the wild?"  In email exchanges, we occasionally see things like:
> 
>    <sarcasm></sarcasm>
>    <joke></joke>
>    <critical></critical>
> ...and so forth, however, I've never seen: <span class="sarcasm"></span> or
> <p class="joke"></p>.  If it (or something similar) exists, please do point
> it out.

Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of having humans interpret the 
tags we come up with, so I think we have to limit ourselves a bit.

> Or are you suggesting adding both?  That to me seems counter-productive and
> more confusing.  

Why? That way people that find RDFa is too complex can limit themselves 
to the predefined (and prefixed) classes that we put in the spec. For 
the people that want the full power of RDFa can use the role attribute.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 18:54:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:10 GMT