- From: Matthew Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:36:39 +1300
On 10 Jan, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Jim Ley wrote: > ... > Current web applications use HTML almost exclusively as a rendering > language, they're not even using the document semantics available in > HTML, it's just script and CSS dangling off of the HTML elements you > need. Sure. If Web applications were semantic they'd need HTML block elements such as <login>, <register>, <order>, and <post>. Since such elements would be of negligible benefit to any author or UA, there's no point in introducing their complexity (and authors can use <div> instead). > Increasing the amount of HTML elements and form tipes out there > doesn't change this fact, they're not going to do quite enough - > There's the eternal problem of the declaritive, it can only go 80% of > the way there, so you end up employing scripters who are much happier > doing it all in script, the disciplines being different. > > If the WHAT WG's aim is to improve Web Application authoring, then > it's scripting that needs to be helped, tweaking at the edge isn't > going to do anything. If the What-WG's work increases the average fraction of any particular application that is written in HTML or XHTML rather than script and/or arbitary XML, we do benefit. We all benefit currently, for example, from Amazon's and IMDb's databases showing up in Google search results -- which they wouldn't do if written entirely in script and/or FooML. (And the application hosts benefit in turn from the search engine traffic.) > If the WHAT WG's aim is to discourage what they call street HTML, No member of What-WG has called anything "street HTML", on the WG's site or (except at your insistent prompting) on this mailing list. > then removing the ambiguity and the mess of the existing HTML and > de-facto specifications into something well grounded will be a lot > more useful than simply introducing more stuff that'll end up in the > variously implemented bin. > ... Removing ambiguity and mess of existing HTML and de-facto specifications is done in at least the following sections (I may have missed some): * Web Forms 2.0 section 2.3 (the "Radio buttons" part) * Web Forms 2.0 section 2.9 * Web Forms 2.0 section 2.14 * Web Forms 2.0 section 2.15 (the "max" part) * Web Forms 2.0 section 2.18 * Web Forms 2.0 section 4.1 * Web Forms 2.0 section 4.2 * Web Forms 2.0 section 5.2 * Web Forms 2.0 section 5.6 * Web Forms 2.0 section 7.1 (the "accept" part) * Web Forms 2.0 section 7.2.1 * Web Forms 2.0 section 8 (its introduction) * Web Applications 1.0 section 1.8 * Web Applications 1.0 section 2 * Web Applications 1.0 section 6.4 * Web Applications 1.0 section 7 * Web Applications 1.0 section 8.5 * Web Applications 1.0 section 10.2. Do you have any specific suggestions for ambiguity-and-mess removal, other than that already done in those sections? -- Matthew Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 23:36:39 UTC