Re: Comments on presentation/structure related to issue 297.

Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> At 08:31 PM 2000-07-21 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >
> >   I would also note that this discussion sounds a little like the
> >   discussion about content meant for humans v. content meant for
> >   machines. Refer to Al's comments on this topic [7]:
> >
> >     "The distinction between data (raw content) and meta-data
> >     (markup) is an artifact of the view assumed by the author.
> >     There is no fundamental semantic difference between what is
> >     called data vs. metadata.  They both play the same role as
> >     bearers of information  Semantically, it is all just
> >     one class of data.  This is a little-understood fact of
> >     information science."
> >
> >   Al, will you make the same comment about an assertion that
> >   presentation v. non-presentation (or structure)?
> >
> 
> [not promising to have read the rest of the message...]
> 
> No.  These concepts are well-posed enough, even if HTML elements don't sort
> neatly along these lines.

[snip]

> So at least in HTML it is possible to talk about markup with
> presentational semantics and markup with structural semantics, but it is
> not possible to partition the set of element types into two groups which
> are purely one and purely the other.

Is that true for all elements (e.g., FONT) or just some? If possible
for some elements, then I suggest we try to identify them.
 
> Hope this is responsive to your question.

Yes, thank you,

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Friday, 21 July 2000 22:59:42 UTC