Re: Structure Again!

> You realize that nobody's said this besides your imagination.  Sure,
> it's easy to knock down arguments you purposely construct to be
> unsupportable...

True...but that's not why I wrote any of that...this little point actually
has a purpose (see below)

> >In 20 years time or whatever when there are no formatting browsers
> >left, people will still see things like:-
> >"I <b>really</b> do <i>believe</i> that the current economic..."
>
> If you saw something that said that, would you be able to understand
> it?  I can understand it myself, and people have been understanding
> that in print for a long time.  What argument are you trying to
> make here?

This is the discussion point I wanted to get to! Can people really
understand <b> etc. if they just looked at it, and if so, what does it
imply? Is <em> any better? Is a stronger semantic framework needed to
describe language?
Does presentational markup carry any semantic meaning, and should plain text
be marked up with presentation/semantics both or neither? These are the
vital points of discussion.

> If you want to present a sarcastic rebuttal, by the way, you should
> at least make sure it bears some resemblance to the points you are
> trying to rebutt.

No, not sarcastic at all, because I realise that these aren't the points you
and others are trying to discuss. I raised them in reply to what
Mr.Loguhborough was talking about, as a satirical reply to him (and only
him, although comments such as yours are very welcome). Sarcasm was not
intended at all, it was merely humor to raise further important points,
which I have done.

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 Monday, 27 November 2000 18:18:03 UTC