- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:01:51 +0100
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:08:16 +0100, Nicholas Shanks <contact at nickshanks.com> wrote: >> How does that help anyone? Putting them in a custom XML vocabulary >> drops all semantics directly. (Unless a search engine does some >> heuristics on element names I suppose.) Custom XML vocabularies are >> really not something you want to have on the web as its implied >> they have no known semantics. > > Not true. Well, that depends on your definition of custom vocabulary I suppose. > XHTML, MathML and SVG are all custom vocabularies with very widely > known semantics. 1. I wouldn't call the custom. 2. Internet Explorer and Google don't get them... > There's nothing preventing a future "CodeML" syntax from being > understood by Koders and Google Code Search. It's not clear to me what the advantage of putting a few elements into a "separate" vocabulary is. I actually think that those type of document semantics, including math, should just be part of HTML. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2007 06:01:51 UTC