- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:33:19 +0000
Jim Ley wrote: >On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:36:39 +1300, Matthew Thomas <mpt at myrealbox.com> wrote: > > >>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>. >> >> > >We have all agreed HTML only has document semantics so >web-applications can never do more. However I was meaning they don't >use strong/em, or p, or hn etc. So the HTML that is rendered is almost >semantically empty for example most web-mail products don't put the >title of the email in an Hn, this is what GMail thinks > ><DIV id=tt><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: larger"><B>Re: [whatwg] Web Forms >2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same,</B></SPAN> > > As I mentioned previously, HTML produced by Google is usually terrible. I have no idea why this should be, perhaps you'd like to take it up with them. However the existance of non-semantic uses of HTML only proves that these are possible in the language, not that well written examples are not common. I would expect that in *any* language one could, with the necessary determination or laziness create a non-semantic mess from semantic elements.
Received on Monday, 10 January 2005 02:33:19 UTC