- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:41:20 +0300
- To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 18, 2007, at 15:33, Ben Boyle wrote: > Good questions all, and I don't know. I wish our design principles > offered guidance here. > > Can I propose a design principle: All elements should have a clearly > defined structural (semantic) meaning > > I propose this because: > - it is a principle that appears to have been applied in HTML5 (but > it's not documented) I think it went more like this: 1) Set a non-presentational principle. 2) Recognize that there are language features that don't match the principle but are implemented, so not using them would let something that we could have for free go to waste. 3) Recognize that in some cases people have useful use cases for the widely-implemented language features, so telling these people to use something more complex would be unproductive. 4) Lawyer around the principle to achieve a practical outcome. I think setting an impractical principle and then lawyering around the self-set principle in order to get a practical outcome is rather silly. I'd prefer to be less principled and more practical in the first place. The problem with the principle that you proposed or the non- presentationalism principle that Hixie has followed but lawyered around is that we are supposed to take authors into account but there are authors whose use cases don't conform to the non- presentationalism principle. Moreover, telling those authors to "use CSS" in the way that actually means "write CSS yourself" or "let your editor create awful style='' cruft" would complicate things only in order to satisfy a principle. Authors using a wiki syntax or one of the many plain text plus magic punctuation syntaxes, authors using a MacWrite-style UI paradigm and authors converting word processor files all need benign inline-level presentational elements like <i> and <b>—sometimes even <font color=''> or <small>. Do we solve or create problems by banning existing and interoperably implemented language features that are applicable to these use cases? To make this more concrete, here's an HTML page my mother wrote using Dreamweaver: http://www.helsinki.fi/~rkosken/kirjallisuus/hc.html The page has a CSS style sheet, but she hasn't learned to develop CSS style sheets herself (neither by hand nor using Dreamweaver's dialog- based CSS rule editor). There has been no need to learn to write CSS. The page validates as HTML 4.01 Transitional. Would we be solving problems or creating them by setting a principle that banned the kind of markup used on that page? P.S. The page uses both <i> and <em> for italicized titles of works. Can you guess how that happened? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 13:43:45 UTC