- From: Pentasis <pentasis@lavabit.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:29:44 +0200
> Pentasis schrieb: >> This I understand, and I can even sympathise with it. However, I do hope >> that at least "they" will take this issue seriously and at least try to >> build in something that will enable "us" to work on that part of the spec >> independantly later on. I still think that the semantic part has very, >> very little to do with the technical side of the spec. so somewhere the >> two should be able to split up. > > I am not sure whether I understand you correctly... Of course the > practical use of a specification lies in its technical implementations, or > do you disagree with that? You are free to specify your own markup > language, but it will be useless if there is no kind of mechanism to > interpret the documents marked up that way. So I don't understand how the > technical side could be split away. Strictly speaking, does it matter for the DOM or parser or whatever, if a tag is named and used like: <abbr title="description">someword</abbr> or like this: <reference class="abbreviation" ttle="some description">someword</reference>. I don't see how that would make things technically different? The same applies for the difference in (for example) <code>blabla</code> or <p class=code>blabla</p>. Obviously there are constructs thinkable where the two would indeed at least rub shoulders like for example in nesting headers, but I am sure something like that is not a major issue and would only mean the two specs need to come to agreement with somethings like that. Another example (just a thought, don't take it seriously) What if we eliminate headers alltogether and specify that the title attribute of a section is the header. Now, in that case I agree one should colaborate with the technical department. But in the grand scheme of things, those are minor points surely? Bert
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 03:29:44 UTC