W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Marking elements as 'volatile'

From: Trejkaz <trejkaz@trypticon.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:30:40 +1100
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200501152230.43776.trejkaz@trypticon.org>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:46, David Woolley wrote:
> In my experience, sites whose prime aim is the provision of information
> (and have not been designed by designers more used to designing for
> selling) don't have extensive noise in their markup, so they wouldn't
> benefit either.

Perhaps you haven't heard of Wikipedia, but I'll let that slide.

> For many commercial sites, the branding noise is often more important
> than the real content.

Isn't HTML supposed to be based on the semantic markup of content, though?  
Why are people arguing the need for an extra tag by countering it with the 
supposed need of selfish businesses who couldn't care less about how their 
web sites actually work?  Such businesses were not the target user group of 
XHTML in the first place, as I'm sure they will continue to use HTML 3.2 
until nobody can render it.

As for people who actually do use XHTML, what is the harm of adding a tag 
which adds clear meaning?  I'm yet to hear any arguments against the actual 
idea, just noise.


             Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz@trypticon.org>
          Web site: http://xaoza.net/
         Jabber ID: trejkaz@jabber.zim.net.au
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73

Received on Saturday, 15 January 2005 11:30:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:55 UTC