Re: Structure Again!

At 10:55 AM 11/27/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>The only reason that any HTML tags mean anything is because someone agreed 
>on them.


The difference is that <bold> wasn't "agreed on" but foisted on the 
language by the browser implementation. It is often pointed out that <i> 
for "italics" can *mean* a lot of things but <em> *means* one thing that 
can be implemented in many ways, including italicizing.

If you just want to argue, OK, but if you seriously think that <important> 
means to show it a certain way on a screen or page or voice rather than 
that the author considers it important, then we can never agree. The 
difference is that <i> means nothing (except to whoever designed some 
implementation) and <important> has an agreed upon semantic meaning in the 
English (American?) language. It can be translated reliably, the "meaning" 
of <i> cannot because it "means" more things. The "agreed on" part is 
what's central to this and the elements that are "structural" have been 
agreed on, those that are presentational, not.

KB:: "For example, the average web page is not rightly a heading-based 
structure"

WL: There is no "average web page". Structure takes many forms and <h1>, 
etc. is a fundamental one in the "tree" sense, but of course not the only 
one. However, ALL web pages have structure - else chaos. Anarchy/chaos are 
romantically persuasive but of little use for human communication (notice 
the "co" at the beginning of that word).

The fact that we can continue these conversations without example is 
absolute proof of there being an underlying unspoken reality that all our 
talk alludes to, abstracts from, and ultimately agrees on. Without examples 
we are just playing "did too - did not" to no avail. The Web is not TV. It 
will not have a set of "superior beings" furnishing "content" to passive 
"users" - we already have had a surfeit of that in media/schools/nations 
etc. If someone wants to have a Web that's not "Semantic" they can continue 
doing what was done before - it's called "TV".

KB:: "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."

WL: They're not consciously deciding to be irresponsible, they're just 
unaware of these matters. They haven't worried their pretty little heads 
about anything beneath appearances. This is true of all of us to a large 
extent, but the means of learning more is upon us. Their "needs" are vague 
at best and to imply that structural tags (of whatever stripe) are 
"insufficient" is like saying there's just not enough colors available to 
express one's "mood". If the tags are insufficient, make new ones. The 
point is that structure is essential to sanity.

---
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 15:36:13 UTC