- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:05:38 -0700
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no> Cc: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>; "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>; "Public-html WG" <public-html@w3.org> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Semantics (was : Formal Recorded Complaint) > > > > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> This argument here doesn't solve «real problems». We are all in favour of >> accessibility. And we [] > > are also all against semantics for the sake of semantics. > > No we're not. Some of us (myself included) believe that > semantics for semantics [sake] is fundamental to high- > quality markup. > Previous orator meant that "semantics is for human" but not "human is for semantics". Human consumes information from the web page visually - directly or with the assistance of Accessibility tools. In both cases "semantics of markup" is relevant at some pretty small extent to the human/observer. That human is not seeing your markup and doesn't want to. Semantics is valuable for web developers and scanning robots. In their case (semantics == high-quality markup), battle for semantics is a fight for the tag system that is more compact/expressive so is more understable and manageable - more semantical if you wish. For the consumer of some software application it does not matter what language/technology was used inside. It is the programmer who can assess the sematical beauty of C/Java/Ruby/Python/etc. code. I would say that CSS is more semantically valuable for human than anything else like HTML or any other markup language. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 20:04:27 UTC