Re: Semantic versus Structure for XHTML 2.0

--- Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de> wrote:
> 
> Karl Dubost wrote:
> > We could try to identify all the elements we need
> to put in HTML, but I 
> > think it will a huge amount of work and necessary
> useful.
> > 
> > I would encourage a solution where the XHTML spec
> becomes just a 
> > structure spec, with Paragraphs, lines, etc and
> not semantics at all.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > We should put the semantics in an attribute with
> to extend a set of 
> > normative values outside of the spec.
> > 
> > So it will become an extensible mechanism.
> > 
> > <p sem="address">
> > <l sem="person">Haruki Murakami</l>
> > <l sem="street">Omote-Sando</l>
> > <l sem="city">    Tokyo</l>
> > </p>
> 
> which could be achieved in HTML 4.01:
> <div class="address">
> <div class="person">Haruki Murakami</div>
> <div class="street">Omote-Sando</div>
> <div class="city">    Tokyo</div>
> </div>
> 
> > The values of sem attribute and their meaning will
> be defined in a 
> > external extensible document.
> 
> The values of the class attribute and their meaning
> will be defined in a 
> external extensible document.
> 
> 
> A better approach in _X_HTML (IMHO) would be the
> usage of elements from 
> a special namespace for an address vocabulary:
> 
> <p><foo:address">
> <l><foo:person>Haruki Murakami</foo:person></l>
> <l><foo:street>Omote-Sando</foo:street></l>
> <l><foo:city>    Tokyo</foo:city></l>
> </foo:address></p>
> 
> This of course would not be a fragment of a valid
> XHTML 2.0 document. 
> But XHTML is meant to be extended like this, isn't
> it?

Mayb it's me, but why isn't this valid - you're using
a xml feature here - are you saying this isn't allowed
or something ?

> -- 
> Johannes Koch
> In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
>                              (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
> 
> 



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 06:06:30 UTC