RE: Feedback on XHTML 2.0 WD (20030131)

>> | About the footer suggestion: Though I like the idea, I'm against it
>> | because it can be achieved with div and CSS.
>>
>> Then why not get rid of <p/>, <blockquote/>, <abbr/>, <pre/>, <quote/>,
>> etc... they can all be achieved with <div/>, <span/> and CSS.
>Agreed.
>But then... the logical markup always is just a compromise. And I think 
>section is appropriate enough for footers.

Of the tags listed above <abbr/> <quote/> <p/> <span/> Are the only ones
that I think add descriptive value to the markup.  Span can do everything a
<div/>,<p/>,<pre/> can with CSS. Of those three <p/> adds descriptive value
to the markup.  Yes there is the new <section/>  but it does not have the
same meaning of <p/>.  You could argue that <pre/> adds descriptive value
also but not sure how much value it is.  If you are for example displaying
some HTML code and want its formatting left you could wrap it in a <code/>
and apply CSS to keep the formatting.  Or wrap in a <code/> and a <pre/>
which would also work.  If the goal is to reduce that about that HTML is
used for presentation and have CSS control presentation then I would say
that <pre/> is a canadate to be dropped.  The same could be said for
<blockquote/>.  It is the same as <quote/> with some CSS added.  <pre/> and
<blockquote/> could both argued to be removed as they mostly only control
presentation and add a only a marginal amount of descriptive value to the
markup.  But then you could argue that there should be more tag of each type
to better describe what presentation attributes that can be added by CSS.
For example you could then argue that a <p/> tag should have a <blockp/>
counterpart.  I am not sure now where I stand on the need for <pre/> and
<blockquote/>.  When I started writing I thought they should be removed
because the are mostly for presentation.  Now I also see that they do have a
small as it is descriptive addition to the markup that could be useful for
screen readers and other ways of presenting the HTML.  


Daniel D.

Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 12:34:27 UTC