- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 00:57:22 -0500
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis scripsit: > The *whole* point? Says who? An exaggeration for effect. Obviously scripting has many purposes. > That's not what Netscape and Sun thought they were doing: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20070916144913/http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease67.html Damned if I can make out what they thought they were doing. In any case, historical origin is not current utility. > Nor are all scripts trusted. Not all content can be trusted either, for that matter. > If you want to maximize the RESTful characteristics of the (world > wide) web, do not rely on code-on-demand facilities for your default > representations. I might say with equal justice: do not rely on the facilities of Grade-A browsers in general. See my home page. > My objection is to substituting arbitrary vocabularies for recognized > vocabularies, not to namespaces. My only essential point about > namespaces was that they are not some sort of fairy dust that cures > the RESTless ills of arbitrary vocabularies. Whatever you feel is wrong with arbitrary vocabularies, I agree that namespaces make them only trivially easier. > First, we should be specifying meaning not behavior so that user agents > can apply behaviors suitable for their purposes. I am reluctant to call "button" or even "p" *meaning*. Abstract behavior, if you like. But if I were marking up this email for *meaning*, I would probably use a "counterargument" element rather than a "p" element for this paragraph. > But text/html already has an way to do that: use elements and attributes > that carry semantics via a commonly recognized vocabulary. It doesn't > need another. IOW, HTML has changed from a presentation vocabulary to an abstract behavior vocabulary. In neither case is it semantic. > I see no value in making semantics indirect via CBS. Why is it less valuable than making presentation indirect via CSS? The two are on all fours. -- Not to perambulate John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> the corridors http://www.ccil.org/~cowan during the hours of repose in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
Received on Sunday, 2 January 2011 05:57:53 UTC