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

Re: ... other formats in HTML ...

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:49:47 -0800
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <89B298B4-A37F-4AFE-9A78-E9684BDC2605@apple.com>
To: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

On Dec 1, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I'm not sure any of your remaining suggestions could be seriously
>> intended, so I'll stop here.
>>  - Maciej
> Well, I'm mainly asking, because I'm not sure, what is a useful
> and consistent way to specify such a language HTML -
> HyperTextMarkupLanguage.
> Obviously there are very different opinions and approaches
> from different people inside the working group and outside
> too. And it seems to be different from the HTML4 approach.
> A markup language for text is in general not much related to
> audio, video or graphical content at all, but if one starts to add
> specific elements for other contents, suddenly the choice gets
> very arbitrary if the list is not complete.

They should be chosen based on:

- Functionality for Web documents and Web applications
- Expressing document and application semantics
- Having valid, common use cases
- Compatibility with existing practice

This clearly covers 'video' and rules out ideas like 'smell' (it's  
semantic but would not have a real use case or provide real  
functionality today), or combining the 'script', 'style' and 'canvas'  
elements (not compatible with existing practice, muddled semantics, no  
use case relative to separate elemenets). While this is not a line  
drawn with mathematical precision, surely we both understand that  
language design requires judgment.

Received on Saturday, 1 December 2007 23:50:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:28 UTC