- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:13:32 +0900
- To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Cc: public-evangelist@w3.org
Le 06-02-06 à 19:26, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> Disclaimer: Just nitpicking. Feel free to ignore.
no Anne, There are good comments.
>> 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.
so that should be fixed in the report as well if I understand the
report.
> Yeah, people should learn to style the <body> and <html> elements...
definitely. *sigh*
>
> <small> is no longer presentational in HTML5. In fact, there is no
> presentational element in HTML5.
hmmm… wonder what is the debate behind the semantics. Interesting.
> 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.
or more freedom by creating any semantics you want. depending on the
way you look at it.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 15:13:49 UTC