W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XBL is (mostly) W3C redundant, and CSS is wrong W3C layer for semantic behavior *markup*

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 18:03:20 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20030101175142.03884e70(null)>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

At 11:30 PM 1/1/2003 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> "SEMANTIC BINDING"
>> ------------------
>>
>> The way a semantic markup element is bound to the implementation
>> which defines it's semantics.
>
>Could you give a definition of "non-semantic binding" first?

Any _mechanism_ of binding which does not define (create, change, augment,
subclass, etc) semantics.

For example, a binding to change the capitalization of a <H1> tag, is
defining (hinting) presentation behavior.  It has nothing to do with what a
header tag means.  If you change a header tag to be a collection of
thumbnails, then it would no longer semantically be a header.

What "header" means in each presentation is a presentation layer decision.
That is probably where the grey area is confusing (even for me!).  The
*KEY* to understanding is to separate the "mechanism of binding" from "what
is bound".  In other words, just because a particular semantic meaning has
multiple interpretations ("what is bound") should not imply that the
presentation layer should have the power to change the meaning of markup at
the binding mechanism layer.   That is why I argue for XSLT mechanism which
has no knowlegde about CSS and CSS has no knowledge about it.  They are
orthogonal.  Of course "what is bound" can be knowledgeable about CSS.  It
is a "model vs. controller" analogy which goes back to the days of SmallTalk.

-Shelby Moore
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2003 19:02:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:18 GMT