Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

> This is why I believe that content should not be encoded in XHTML, but
> in an appropriate XML dialect.  In my line of thinking, XHTML and other
> languages which have presentational markup are entirely appropriate and
> useful as end presentation languages, chosen appropriately by the
> server.  My process for web serving looks like this: [...]

I've followed CC/PP for quite a while now, and I have often offered the "XML
Source" line of thinking as an appropriate solution to (current) XHTML
limitations. One of the things about the Semantic Web is that it should fit
in well with CC/PP applications, we can describe our XML Source exactly as
we want it, and then attach profles as you say.
The problem is that until such a date, we have to work out how to use all of
this legacy stuff.

> The presentation language _must_ contain the necessary information
> (call it semantics, call it markup, call it something else) for the
> user agent to appropriately render/provide access to the data on the
> specific end device, but it's not necessary to send _all_ information
> to that user agent if it won't need it.

I agree. It's alright attaching behaviours to markup even as long as you use
a 100% foolproof CC/PP based system...but I wouldn't condone it's use for
any other system. I suppose the rift is generated by the fact that I see
XHTML as a useful XML source media, and you see it as the final presentation
media. That's quite interesting if true.

> So it's not a case of someone arrogantly deciding "we don't need
> to know that!", it's a case of providing what has been requested.

I know: I've followed CC/PP. I even tried outlining an implementation system
for it: DTPP.

> Actually it depends on what you're wanting to do.  If you want to make
> a piece of text bold (for whatever reason) then you should use <b>.

Ugh...I see where you're coming from now. You could do that as the end
result of a CC/PP system, declared in the XHTML 1.0 namespace: especially if
you use DTDs. For a Schema version of XHTML (2.0?), i.e. a purely XML
version, then you'd never be able to use <b> 'cause it wouldn't mean
anything.

> If you want to emphasize a piece of text (for whatever reason) then you
> should use <strong>.

No, you should use <em> :-)

> Philosophically it's important to realize that sometimes someone may
> just want to say "this should be bold, because I feel it should be bold."

I still believe that philisophically, there should be an allowance of
alternatives.

> [...] Then I've lost the audience and my credibility.  If this makes no
> difference whatsoever (and I firmly believe that <b> will be with us
> in HTML as long as we have HTML of any flavor

I think it is going to be a case of me saying the following:-
If you're using XHTML as a document display format for text/html groking
User Agents, then fine: add as much presentation and behaviours as you like.
But if you're using XHTML as a data format, containg Semantic information
that a world of SW/XML/RDF processors can understand, then use a future
version of XHTML, and never breathe a word about presentational markup and
attached behaviours.
In other words you use flavoured HTML, and I'll use plain ol' XHTML (2.0
hopefully). And then in 5/10/20 years time compare these methods again.
Further reading:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Aug/0052.html (that's Dan
Connolly in reply to me on www-html).

> The "overridden" ability is less attractive to authors, by the way. :)
> But please note that <b> can be overridden, too!  (As far as CSS goes,
> <b> and <strong> are both equally useful...)

As far as CSS goes, I could use <abbr> in place of <b> if I so wished. But
then if that's how I'm used to seeing abbreviations, then why not?

> Of course I'm contradicting; I was explaining Anne's viewpoint, not
> my own.  <big>, <b>, backgrounds, and fonts are presentational, but
> note that you and I place different values and uses on presentational
> markup.

Indeed we do, and I understand why now!
In the words of Bob Dylan (I seem to quote Bob a lot lately): "And time will
tell just who has fell, and who's been left behind...when you go your way,
and I go mine". In the end I think as long as we use our methods at opposite
ends of the CC/PP chain, we'll both prosper *immensely*.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 15:13:55 UTC