- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:57:04 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Dao Gottwald wrote: > Mike Schinkel schrieb: >>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples >>> "markup that expresses semantics is usually preferred to purely >>> presentational markup" -- So you can't deprecate a semantic element >>> in favor of a presentational one. >> I was not asking to deprecate <blockquote>. It still have significant >> value. But it is very often misused simple to gain an indent which >> is what I was proposing. > Well, you wrote "vs. <blockquote>", and it has been requested to > deprecate <blockquote> for reasons similar to yours. I didn't intend to imply a deprecation. Sorry if I inadvertently gave that impression. >>> "HTML Strikes a balance between semantic expressiveness and >>> practical usefulness." -- Explicitly removing semantics can't be >>> considered as a balance. (I neither think <indent> would be useful.) >> I wasn't proposing removing semantics. I was proposing adding an >> element with reduced semantics that could be used when another would >> often be misused. > The thing is, people think presentational even if the want semantics. > If there's <indent>, people will use that to indent text that they > want to quote. Otherwise, we could also reanimate <font>. Good point, but probably the lesser of two evils. OTOH, we could add an attribute such as @rel or @type to <indent>. >> Otherwise, we could also reanimate <font>. Actually, that's apples and oranges as <font> is not a block level element and by nature isn't something that people would use to apply CSS to. For <indent> authors could define CSS to apply consistently across a document. You might think I'm being inconsistent by suggesting this, but I'm actually thinking that the person contributing posts or comments to a blog would be different from the person designing the theme, for example. >>>> Did I say that? (Asked another way, since when do *browsers* >>>> generally recognize semantics in markup?) >>> So you expect accessible browser X to recognize <indent >>> class="quote"> as a quote? >> I didn't say that either. Why do you keep trying to attribute to me >> statements I did not make? > I expected that you wanted to make that statement, since we need > accessible browsers to recognize semantics. I'm lost as to what you were trying to get across. Are you discussing things like screen readers? >>> It can also be important for software apart from browsers, like >>> search engines. >> Important how? > Search engines have to weight content. One of my arguments for <indent> is that search engines currently cannot depend on <blockquote> because it is so often misused. With <indent> there would be no semantics, which is better IMO than incorrect semantics. And semantics could be added specific attributes, like @rel or @type, or with @class and Microformats if Microformats succeed. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 05:57:27 UTC