W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:43:47 -0400
Message-Id: <79E5DDDD-2201-44CD-BCFB-C8173E63D322@la-grange.net>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam, Leif,

Le 27 mars 2010 à 13:02, Leif Halvard Silli a écrit :
> Karl: I hope you eventually will confirm that you stand by that claim 
> ... ;-)

yes, explanation below.

> The typographic feature "line-through" can either be "just" that. Or it 
> can be a signal which tells a story about the edition history that a 
> particular text has gone through. Or it can be something "in between". 

Yes but that statement is true for many elements. Sam's original question was not clear enough and slightly not related to accessibility and even semantics. I could do exactly the same kind of statement with the alt attribute.

I can choose to put alt="" on a photograph because from my publisher point of view, I think it is just decorative. I'm just making an editorial choice like the choice of a word.

Then Sam tried to clarify by giving options
http://www.w3.org/mid/4BAE19C5.4070503@intertwingly.net

* The Conformance Requirements for authors is incomplete
* The claims are not justified or hit the wrong target


Le 27 mars 2010 à 10:44, Sam Ruby a écrit :
> As near as I can tell, the use of the <strike> element was not by Mark himself, but was allowed through whatever gauntlet of sanitization filters that he employed at the time.


I relate that to a design flaw of many CMS. Basically it is quite easy to deliver a site which is valid, accessible, SEO friendly, etc. Very often, there are no tools for maintaining the quality. CMS needs a feedback loop. When I publish, I either sanitize (done most of the time for security, not for markup quality), or I give feedback to the person that the written markup is not correct.

One size doesn't fit all. Some users need a markup validity check feedback, some users are just not tech savy and in this case, the system *should* take care of it. Unfortunately for me, here, I used should. :)


Is it easier to use ccs more than font, is it easier to maintain, etc?  
Yes and No (I'm from Normandy). It really depends on the context and use cases. I have seen people creating cascading stylesheets which were not maintainable.

The discussion is a revival of the old tune: "Should Authoring requirements be normative or just best practices?" as shown here:
http://www.w3.org/mid/4BAE3E9F.9010005@intertwingly.net

Le 27 mars 2010 à 13:21, Sam Ruby a écrit :
> Net: the goal to reduce presentational markup is a noble one that I enthusiastically support.  The means selected, namely mandatory author conformance criteria for the MIME type of text/html, is not something I can support.

and http://www.w3.org/mid/4BAE590D.30009@intertwingly.net

Le 27 mars 2010 à 15:14, Sam Ruby a écrit :
> On 03/27/2010 02:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> So you think that we can help authors more by explicitly making lots
>> of things valid, and then producing a separate document that says not
>> to use some of them?  (Not rhetorical - this just seems to be what
>> you're saying and I want to make sure.)
> 
> I don't believe that we can come to agreement in finite time on what the best current practices are.  I don't believe that we have gathered together the right group of people to tackle that task.  I also believe that best current practices evolve at a different pace than Standards do.


The issue for me as an author: How does your proposal help me?

Could you list current author requirements (MUST, SHOULD) which should be dropped to be in a best practice document? I guess that would help the discussion.






-- 
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 22:44:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC