Re: Proposing <indent> vs. <blockquote>

Murray Maloney wrote:
> Not only will <blockquote> be preserved, but we will get an <indent> 
> or <nest> or <???> element to indicate a deeper level of content.

<indent> was proposed as something that adds "add[s] zero semantic

and then later as something with "reduced semantics":

But what is a "deeper level of content"? That sounds suspiciously like a
semantic definition of an element that should probably be placed under a
<heading> to aid navigation to it.

It also has no obvious relation to how Mike is actually misusing
<blockquote> (I'll deal with that in greater detail in a subsequent post.)

> he has already sided with you and I on the need for a core set of 
> presentational markup.

Every element should be argued on its merits. Why does <indent> need to
be part of the core set in HTML5?

> For all of you who disagree with our position, it would behoove you
> to actually read what we have had to say on this subject.

Happily. But could you please link to the particular public statements
you would like us to read?

> It is absurd to even suggest that HTML is a semantic language, except
> to the extent that the sphere of meaning is "hypertext document 
> publishing."

The HTML Working Group's charter says it should devise: "A language
evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents and
applications on the World Wide Web." Is the charter absurd?

> That's not to say that semantics can't be overlayed onto HTML, it
> can. Using a variety of techniques, including CLASS attributes,
> profiles, GRDDL, XSLT, and so on, HTML content be used coerced into
> being semantically rich.

Sounds like an authoring nightmare. What would be the advantage of such
an HTML over (say) ODF? Not compatibility with existing user agents,
since profiles and GRDDL and XSLT are poorly supported if supported at
all. What would would be their advantage over semantic HTML 4.01 Strict
plus microformat and WAI accessibility classes, which /does/ have some
user agent support?

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Sunday, 15 April 2007 14:19:54 UTC