Re: Proposed Design Principles updated

Le 4 avr. 2007 à 00:36, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
> 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.

ah the beautiful word "semantics"… with a diluted meaning because  
used in many different contexts.

The functional definition of an element/a feature in a specification  
is what can be called the semantics of this elements. I think we  
should avoid to use the word semantics to qualify the type of content  
the element/attribute is supposed to mark up. That would help to  
avoid debates based on misunderstanding.

'b' element          marks content for presentation (style).
     The semantics of this element is to apply bold style on the *text*.

'blockquote' element marks content for a specific meaning.
     The semantics of this element is to say that the content is an  
excerpt from another source.

I think I had something like this in my list of [69 comments][1] to  
XHTML 2.0. I used the word [semantics too][2]. Not a wise choice. Hmm  
I will have to read a frozen version of WebApps 1.0 against my list  
of comments to XHTML 2.0, there are things which applies as well to  
this document.


Karl Dubost -
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog -
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 01:59:31 UTC