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

Re: Proposing <indent> vs. <blockquote>

From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:02:44 -0400
Message-ID: <46206E84.1040008@mikeschinkel.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

Dao Gottwald wrote:
> Mike Schinkel schrieb:
> I don't see how "authors miss to define any semantics when indenting" 
> is any better than "authors abuse <blockquote>". 
This is similar to how, in relational database it is well know that it 
is better to have a NULL value in a field, meaning "unknown" than to 
have a "0" value in a field but without knowledge if the 0 was entered 
or was just the default.
> Prizing the abuse of <blockquote> (widespreadness yet to be proved) by 
> adding an explicitly presentational element doesn't solve the problem, 
I disagree.
> but manifests another one.
Such as?
>>      Priority of Constituencies
>> PriorityOfConstituencies </topic/PriorityOfConstituencies>: In case 
>> of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over 
>> specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or 
>> difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to 
>> authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to 
>> implementors; which should be given more weight than costs to authors 
>> of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those 
>> proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is 
>> preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once.
> Introducing presentational markup goes agains "users over authors".
I don't comprehend your interpretation.  Users *currently* get no value 
from most semantic markup.  And even if they did, better than they would 
get no semantics than incorrect semantics.

BTW, you made me realize that "Priority of Constituencies" principle 
does not address the generally orthogonal constituencies of robots and 

-Mike Schinkel
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 06:03:05 UTC

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