- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:26:30 +0000
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote: >> But it is a question, not a request. I don't want to request something >> that would be harmful. So, what is the downside of the example in that >> earlier email? > > Well, SVG itself would arguably be bad because it is poor from a semantic > standpoint. However, as far as generic author-defined semantics go, that's > what the "class" attribute is for. Microformats.org, for example, use the > "class" attribute to introduce calendar semantics and the like into HTML. > You take the closest fitting HTML element, semantically, and then augment > it with your classes. SVG is a pretty good example because (some) browsers _do_ support the SVG "semantics" (in the sense that they understand when to draw a circle, when to draw a path, etc.). I think a lot of people who are complaining at the moment might be happy if there was a possibly to do: <svg subtreeNS="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <!-- SVG content here --> </svg> And similarly with say, MathML. I don't think there's anything desirable about calling the attribute xmlns because the semantics would differ from that attribute (it would only allow namespaces on a per-subtree basis). I don't pretend to know how parsing would work though. -- "The universe doesn't care what you believe. The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith, it just asks for your eyes" --- http://xkcd.com/c154.html
Received on Saturday, 2 December 2006 02:26:30 UTC