- From: J. King <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:58:36 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
Forgive me if I have missed a glaring piece of information in the latest working draft of XHTML 2.0 or if I misunderstand the importance of semantics in the continued work on XHTML, but I have been giving this some consideration and am at a bit of a loss. While discussing the importance of <object>, Masayasu Ishikawa pointed me to the embedding attribute collection module [1], which he said would be used more often to insert simple raster images than <object>. Though the potential is quite interesting, I don't see how most uses for these attributes, especially those presented by the examples in the working draft, can possibly be semantically proper, or in some cases even practical. The first example, an image marked up as a paragraph, seems to be poor form. A paragraph implies text, and unless the image in question were a graphical representation of text (such as text in a writing system Unicode does not yet include, a fictitious language, or radically styled text that CSS cannot reproduce), This would be a gross misuse of markup in a semantic sense. As the example is obviously not a representations of text, the draft seems to be promoting a poor use of the mechanism. In the case of the second example, a table, the use of an image is more likely than not unnecessary and a waste of effort, though completely proper. Given the capabilities of CSS2 and CSS3 and the fact that alternate content is provided in the example, an image, considering how much easier markup is to edit, would be a waste of time and bandwidth. The examples, in short, should be reworked to better promote semantic correctness. In most cases, I get the impression that no element such as <p> would be semantically correct, and using the generic elements (<span> and <div>) would cause the document to dramatically lose clarity. Add to this the fact that <img> and <object> are typically styled as inline-blocks whereas other elements are not, and you run into quite a mess, especially when you take into account conventions (and necessities) of CSS styling of blocks and inlines. As I stated above, there are some cases where the attributes would be useful (mostly as graphical representations of stylised text), but relatively few. One case that comes to mind would be <hr>, where the element would be a graphic without need of a textual alternative, but that's about all I can think of. The collection does have its uses, but I get the impression that <object> will be used far more than Mr. Ishikawa believes, simply because it's much more practical--and logical--to most people, including myself. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-attribute- collections.html#col_Embedding -- J. King mtknight@dark-phantasy.com http://dark-phantasy.com/ http://snap.dark-phantasy.com/
Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 23:58:39 UTC