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: Douglas Livingstone <lists@redmelon.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:12:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <001901c2b43e$4a4800c0$aa753850@douglas>
To: <www-style@w3.org>

You know what seems so funny to me? I think you are both correct.

I like examples, so if anyone wants to take one apart, have a go with the
one I just made:


Its "HTML 4.01 Strict!" and the CSS has "No error or warning found". (Can
someone who worked on the HTML validator give the CSS validator people a
hand to integrate the two? OK, OT...)

So, anything interesting in the code?

I think its a case of perspectives:

- From the user's perspective (using a CSS equipped visual UA), both area
have identical meanings (a header, then some body text).
- From the perspective of the HTML, according to the specs, they are
different. (The first is a header, then a paragraph, the second is a
paragraph, then a header)

This seems to be proof that the meanings of elements change depending on the
method of display, hence the semantics of the elements change from the
perspective of the observer via the CSS. OTOH, the HTML has not changed, its
meaning is the same: just try pressing "s" in Opera 7. So, from the
perspective of the HTML, the semantics have not changed.

After that, can we say that prove Shelby is right (the interpretation != the
spec, in all cases) and Ian is also right? (The meaning of the validated
HTML itself has not changed, and continues to be that of the spec.)

Therefore, does that tidy everything up, or did I just get your whole set of
arguments wrong? (Quite possible, as I skipped the first half, not having
heard of XBL, and when I did start reading it all seemed quite simple and
had degenerated into bickering anyway.)


(PS, that's HTML 4.01, not XHTML 1, for you Ian ;-)
(PPS, if someone insults your cool page, or spells your name with a "j",
just ignore it please? I know it's hard to ask, but I just did anyway.)
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 12:13:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC