- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:30:21 +0000 (GMT)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > For most people (IMO), this is a tag: <tag> I think for most people, this is a tag: <tag attrribute="xxxx"></tag> or attribute="xxxx". I'm not sure to what extent this is the result of people's misunderstanding HTML when they actually see the source, or simply looking at from a WYSIWYG perspective, in which case you highlight an area of text and apply a "tag" to it, in which case it doesn't really matter that <b></b> has no attributes, <font ...></font> does have attributes, and alt="xxx" can only be applied to an image; they all add an attribute to part of the image of the document. It's a slight nuisance that some newer browsers don't allow you to do this to arbitrary text, rather than properly nested text. In this case, you can treat alt as an element that immediately surrounds the image element. I would say that, in "web design" terminology, tag almost never means tag in the XML or SGML sense, unless you mean a turn bold on or turn bold off "tag". One secondary consequence of the attribute-element confusion is that people joining the XML bandwagon almost always design attribute free schemas!
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 08:41:26 UTC