Re: The Semantic Debate

John Foliot wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> I haven't followed the whole @class/@role discussion here very well,
>> so at the risk of throwing in a total red herring... 
>> I have been mostly over in the Semantic Web land, happily using XHTML
>> 1.x for the last few years, sort of ignoring the fact that most
>> people don't quote their attributes nor balance their tags, and using
>> tidy to make up the difference when necessary.   
> And sum reely kewl kids spel funny, or talk in SMS - IYKWIM, AFAIK U cn 2...
> That doesn't help a lot of us, and I'm not really sure what it brings to
> this discussion

Personally I'm very interested in how people use HTML4 today, because I 
think largely they are going to keep using HTML5 the same way. If we 
propose something that goes against what people are doing today, I 
suspect it won't be used nearly as much as if we suggest something that 
aids and enhances their current use practices. Granted, that is just a 
hunch and I might be wrong.

I would not be opposed to adding a 'role' attribute, as long as we also 
support adding semantics the way it's done before. Such as using the 
class attribute (as long as it's properly prefixed as has been suggested 
before) or using new elements added to the spec.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 17:53:22 UTC