- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:55:53 -0800
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 2:49 PM -0800 11/23/00, William Loughborough wrote: >The only reason that a selection of "bold" means "more important" is >because the author and user have some previous agreement to that >effect - [...] Which sounds curiously like the definition of "semantics" itself. The only reason that any HTML tags mean anything is because someone agreed on them. If I add <important>my own tags</important>, those are less "semantic" because nobody would agree what they meant. >The fact that so few people are even aware of the concept of >structured documents is why there is often little understanding of ><h1> as structure, despite its non-committal name. The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that documents must follow a heading-based document structure. This is one reason why, in another message, I wrote that XHTML is a poor general data format. XHTML (and HTML) defines _one_ type of document decently, and doesn't deal well with most other types of documents. For example, the average web page is not rightly a heading-based structure. This is one of the primary reasons why <h1> structures are not used. It's not that web designers are consciously deciding to be irresponsible -- it's because a hierarchical outline structure to a document does not fit their needs. XHTML structural tags are not used because they have proven, repeatedly, to be insufficient for the needs of the people using them. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 14:34:58 UTC