- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:28:40 +0100
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > As you can see, the limits you try to set are very > arbitrary and not much related to the language we are > talking about. With respect, I did not propose (or argue in favour of) <audio>, <video>, <canvas> [1], nor did I reject SMIL : all I tried to suggest was that there are a finite number of universes of discourse for which HTML as-is is perfectly suited, and that whilst I have every sympathy for your wish to be able to mark up a poem in some future dialect of HTML, I would have equal sympathy for those wishing to mark up plays, chemical formulae, contracts and so on ... And since it is clearly unreasonable to expect HTML to be extended to natively support not only these domains but the potentially infinite number of other domains that have not been enumerated, it is (IMHO) better to define a domain-based extension mechanism (such as RDFa, as referred to by Peter Krantz) through which you can define the exact set of elements that you need to mark up poetry, allowing others can define the exact set of elements that each needs for his or her particular universe of discourse. Philip TAYLOR -------- [1] Which is not to say that I necessarily believe that these are bad ideas; rather they are orthogonal to the subject under discussion, since it is by no means unreasonable to imagine that an /avant garde/ poet might wish to use one or more of these in the presentation of his or her contemporary verse.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 20:28:40 UTC