- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:14:01 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 09:46 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-25, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:24:10 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote: > >> [...] So why exactly should >> <a>content</a> be defined as conforming? > > Why not? What's wrong with <a>? It's semantically wrong. In other places HTML5 does a lot of work to help authors produce more semantically sound markup. Exceptions may be necessary, but not without a good reason. In the grander scheme of things, this matters because it affects what conformance means. I appreciate the balancing act Henri describes <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0694.html>. In this particular case it seems to me that "The notion of document conformance is partly a way to try to sway author behavior to a "good" direction" should be given more weight. > It's conforming HTML4. Sure, but we're trying to move to HTML5 for a reason aren't we? ;) (Btw, I hardly know SGML, but might it not be that that was the only reason <a> needed to be considered valid in HTML 4?) > It's shorter than <span> I don't think three characters weigh up against the semantic argument. (Besides, IMO element/attribute names should be short but descriptive, so at least to english speaking authors they [1] give a hint about what they're for and [2] are easier to remember/guess. Short for shortness' sake is only useful to a few Perl programmers ;)) > and the stylesheet rules will be simpler. How? Going with Lachlan's example, how is menu a { /* Styles for current page */ } menu a:link { /* Styles for other links */ } simpler than: menu span { /* Styles for current page */ } menu a:link { /* Styles for other links */ } or even menu { /* Styles for current page */ } menu a:link { /* Styles for other links */ } ? > Saying that your cleanup tool will mess it up can go for anything. Perhaps, yes. It just occured to me -- perhaps this case is not anywhere near unique. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 13:14:54 UTC