- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:37:31 +0900
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Le 18 juil. 2007 à 02:57, Robert Burns a écrit :
> Earlier I gave the example of changing the semantics of <small>
> from meaning "presentationally small text" to meaning "legal
> descriptions and other disadvantages" With that, "the likelihood
> that it will be interpreted and presented as intended by an
> implementation" falls dramatically.
Indeed a semantics extractor looking at the version of HTML
<p>Life is <small>tough</small>.</p>
* HTML 4.01
SMALL: Renders text in a "small" font.
* HTML 5.01
The small element represents small print (part of a document often
describing legal restrictions, such as copyrights or other
disadvantages), or other side comments.
Then I'm an implementer of a semantics extractor. What are my
implementation strategies?
For HTML 4.01, two choices:
* ignore it, it has no meaningful semantics.
* extract it, with a message [small text without particular
meaning: tough]
For HTML 5.01
* [small print or side comments: tough]
Both definitions create issues. That would be interesting to test/
review all definitions of the specification with having to
1) author the information
2) extract the information
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 02:37:46 UTC