On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Tim Leverett <zzzzbov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Are you fundamentally distrusting the author in all semantic markup? > > In some circumstances, yes. Most of the work I've done so far has been in > environments where programmers write code, and editors write content. > Typically the content is via a CMS. If the editor is good but the > programmer is not, the content is still worth having even if its surrounded > by rubbish markup. From a data analytics and processing standpoint, there's > no reason to discard good content just because its held in bad code in the > same way that there's no reason to accept bad content just because its well > formatted. > > > > Why then did we introduce <article>, <header>, <nav>, <aside>, <footer> > etc when we can't trust the author to put the correct content in there? I > don't really see the difference. > > Steve made a good point about user agents being able to tune into semantic > elements for assistive tech. But I would guess (with no data to support my > claim) that most programmers *want* to do things the right way. I agree. > I find that, semantically, most of the time most websites are mostly > correct. Headings tend to be in <h#> elements, paragraphs tend to be in <p> > elements, etc. Heuristic analysis of content can take advantage of semantic > markup by giving it a heavier weight than, say...a <div> element, but that > doesn't mean the heuristics are any less complex. > Are you saying we should not introduce a <main> element because where there is no <main> element we may need to come up with a complex heuristic to determine where it should have been? Silvia.Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 02:52:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:48 UTC