Re: Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics

Disclaimer: Just nitpicking. Feel free to ignore.

Quoting Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>:
> for example for "nav", the equivalent in XHTML 2.0 is "nl"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-list.html#edef_list_nl
> "header" will be "h" in XHTML 2.0, etc.

<nav> is more like |role="navigation"|. I think <nl> is more like <menu>, but
probably not entirely as <menu> offers a lot more functionality. <header>
doesn't exist in XHTML 2.0. It is something you often see:

<div class="header">
  <h1>Header</h1>
  <p>Some subtitle which is not a header.</p>
</div>

XHTML 2.0 lacks a lot of semantics for creating simple documents...


> There is something, I'm doubtful though. These following class names
>  text, content, main, body   article
> are not used most of the time for an "article" in WepApps 1.0 or a  
> "section" in XHTML 2.0

HTML5 has <section> too. As in, <article> and <section> are not identical.


> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_section
> But there are used when we create a layout. There are more  
> presentational somehow than semantics. Or let's say it's the main  
> section where there will be the text (outside of menu, footer,  
> header) and can contain more than one articles.

Yeah, people should learn to style the <body> and <html> elements...


> I'm surprised by the presentational element "small" in WebApps 1.0.  
> Why not keeping "font" in this case? specifically when it is said  
> later on "Beyond the top 20, many of the classes are of a  
> presentational nature (clear, style2, bold...), and most of the  
> values that don't fall into that bucket are synonyms for the top 20". 
>  Why small more than others?

<small> is no longer presentational in HTML5. In fact, there is no
presentational element in HTML5.


> Ian says: "The most-used attribute on html elements is xmlns, from  
> misguided people using XHTML but sending it as text/html. They even  
> (just) outnumber the people who specify the lang  attribute!"
>
> Hehe it seems not that harmful, it seems. I'm mean if we look on the  
> pragmatic side. People are really using xmlns=""  and !!!!  
> xml:lang="" which means that namespaces do not seem to be that evil  
> or difficult when they are included by editors.

The problem is though that xml:lang will never be recognized as such when
"XHTML" is send as text/html. It will be recognized as an attribute named
xml:lang instead of lang in some namespace.


> But there are things of XHTML 2.0 which should not be used/created  
> because there are not used. I have difficulties with processing the  
> logics ;) I think there are interesting things to see in both  
> specifications.

The problem with XHTML 2.0 is that it ads very little value over XHTML 1.0 and
is not backwards compatible with it _at all_. (New namespace.) And therefore
also not compatible with HTML which will be the most widely used language.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>

Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 10:17:27 UTC