W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposed Design Principles updated

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:36:02 -0700
Message-Id: <D29CCF4B-A670-491F-A727-B6C27269C751@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>

On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:41 AM, Murray Maloney wrote:

>> * Good practice: Separation of content, presentation, interaction
>> A specification SHOULD allow authors to separate content from both
>> presentation and interaction concerns.
>> (Covered by Mostly Semantic Markup, currently disputed.)
> This design principle is one that I can live with, whereas "Mostly  
> Semantic Markup"
> is not one that I can live with.
> I can support a design principle that calls for separation. This is  
> the same principle
> that has been at play since the earliest days of markup -- GML,  
> This is one of the key design principles that led to the creation  
> of markup.
> However, the phrase "Mostly Semantic Markup" is overloaded. After  
> all, <b>
> has semantics and it facilitates for the separation of content and  
> presentation.
> But I suspect that the proponents of "Mostly Semantic Markup"  
> aren't saying
> that they want more <b>-like elements in HTML.

I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't <b> traditionally considered  
more presentational than semantic? And doesn't it put presentation in  
the content? Seems like both principles lean against adding more <b>- 
like elements. And it seems to me like we want to avoid <b>-like  
elements. So I'm not sure what the difference is.

> How about we all agree to the Good practice that is codified in  
> and forget about "Mostly Semantic Markup"?
> Regards,
> Murray
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:36:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:18 UTC