Re: Structure vs Semantics

> [Original Message]
> From: Chris Moschini <>
> Ernest Cline wrote:
> > without it how
> > is a user agent supposed to tell in the absence of styling information
> > that an element that could be used for either block or inline is
> > supposed to be one or the other when the content of the element
> > could fit either model.
> This I believe is an antiquated argument. HTML2-4, and even XHTML1 exist
> accord with poor styling standards support - CSS was generally unavailable
> while these markup languages were the latest, and so presentation had to
> given a nod. But XHTML2 will exist at least with XForms and CSS2.1
> which changes things a great deal. Why consider presentation of unstyled
> markup? To me, XHTML2 is the other half of the CSS story that the W3C is
> trying to tell - that your styling language is presentation, your markup
> structure and semantics, and never the twain shall meet.
> So why include any notion of presentation in 2? If an author needs
> content to look attractive, HTML4 is ready and waiting. If an author wants
> XForms, CSS, and *ML to look great when combined, I think XHTML2
> has found its place.

If that approach is followed, then all XHTML2 will ever be used for is
as an adjunct to XForms, etc. not as a true successor to HTML, and
there are a number of areas in which (X)HTML needs improving.
I want an improved XHTML that can stand on its own, altho its
appearance can be customized by the author using CSS and can
integrate content from other XML document types such as SVG,
MathML, etc.  I am not looking for an esoteric text markup language
that is dependent upon other standards to be useful, altho if the
modules of XHTML2 are designed and arranged so as to also be
useful for an esoteric text markup language, I have no objections.

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:54:38 UTC