- From: Jonathan Worent <jworent@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:45:38 -0800 (PST)
--- James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:24:17 +0100, Christoph P?per > > <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote: > >> And HTML5 isn't that semantically pure anyway. > > > > Where can it be improved? > > To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do > people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is? I've always thought that an element was semantically correct if its name alone conveyed, or at least gave some indication, of how the element is to be used. This of course has to be balanced with compatibility. IMHO a, q, m, x and t all lack semantic richness. Obviously some of these couldn't be changed, like a. But if you think about it, how would someone that doesn't know html know that a meas anchor, and for that matter how is "anchor" indicative of a link. I'm not suggesting a be changed, as I said a balance has to be found and some names can't be made more descriptive. ┌────── Jonathan Worent ──────┐ └───────── Webmaster ─────────┘ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview)
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:45:38 UTC