- From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:16:17 +0100
- To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> From: Jan Roland Eriksson [SMTP:jrexon@newsguy.com] > > This is the curse of xml, and that curse is valid for HTML too. > There's no sufficiently clear description on what elements stands for, > and obscure element names helps a lot to muddle up things even more. > [DJW:] I don't think this is the real problem; the real problem is that most HTML authors think WYSIWYG, not structure. > E.g. DocBook is nice reading if one wants to see a strong contrasting > example. A vast number of really _understandable_ element names, paired > with a description of "processing expectations" for each one of them. > [DJW:] I think docbook like systems would be considered too "geeky" by the vast majority of content authors (this is a criticism of the authors more than anything) - one of the Unix FAQs is how to write man pages without understanding how to write man pages (and man pages still have a lot of more or less physical markup). Whilst believing that what consumers need is deep structure documents, I think what would best meet the wants of most authors is a page description language, not a markup language.
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2000 08:22:02 UTC