- From: Kenny Graham <kennygraham@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:02:46 -0400
- To: "www-html-editor@w3.org" <www-html-editor@w3.org>
While I'm very excited about the vast majority of the 2.0 specs, I'm disappointed that <hr> is retained, even if it is renamed. The <seperator> tag's structural value is minimal in theory, and I predict will be non-existent in actual use. Much more structure would be obtained by using a <section> tag with a bottom or top border defined in CSS. Even in the justifications for it's retention that I have read, it is readily admitted that its purpose will still be to draw a horizontal line before or after a portion of the page. While it may be remotely possible to use this tag structurally, I fear that its use will be reminiscent of the way <em> is currently abused as a replacement for <i>. Regardless of the spec's good intentions, history has shown that the vast majority of web developers will cling to any method of using HTML for presentation available to them. Some of these problems, such as use of tables for layout, will be very difficult to fix. However, the removal of the <seperator> tag would bring us one step closer to a purely structural HTML. I'm aware how this is going to make me sound, but I also know that many of you have silently been thinking it for years: Most web designers need to be protected from themselves. And the W3C, through its actions, seems to agree. HTML4.1 had almost everything necessary for completely structural HTML. However, nobody but we few standards-obsessed developers utilized that ability. The tags designed for tabular data were used to splice layouts. Tags meant for structural headings were used as shortcuts to larger fonts. Since then, each release has required more structure, and removed more purely presentational elements, in what I believe is an attempt to force the structural documents that were already possible. But as long as elements that can easily be used for presentation exist, those elements WILL be used, almost exclusively, for presentation, even if those elements also have a structural value. -- Kenny Graham
Received on Monday, 2 May 2005 16:21:23 UTC