RE: About XHTML 2.0

Sebastian,

One of the problems with XML is that it represents hierarchical information
very easily. Most will say how is that a problem -- surely that's what we
want! Unfortunately it means that all data gets squeezed into a hierarchical
model, and sometimes it's squeezed in kicking and screaming.

So, yes, we know that if you have:

  X
    A
    B
    separator
    C

you can make that into:

  X
    Y
      A
      B
    Z
      C

That's simple.

But did I say that A and B have a parent of Y? I didn't. Did I say that A
and B were in the same 'group' as each other? I certainly didn't do that.
Did I say that A and B are in a different group to C? No. In fact the only
thing I said was that I want a separator -- I didn't even say what I want to
separate. Everything else is a layer of semantics that you are trying to
impose on my document that I did not imply.

It's a cliché indeed, but it does seem to me to be a case of "when you have
a new hammer belt, you tend to carry your hammer around with you all day".
;)

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Redl
> Sent: 23 May 2005 15:31
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: About XHTML 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 
> >Mikko,
> >
> >I don't understand why this is getting so complicated. There 
> are plenty 
> >of use-cases for something that comes between two items (a 
> separator) 
> >in a
> >*semantic* way. That's not presentational, and the two objects being 
> >separated are not something that might need a name. It's 
> like a 'pause' 
> >when you are reading.
> >  
> >
> The two objects separated are, as you say, separate objects. 
> Yet you insist on putting them into the same container, 
> without individual containers.
> I think a good maxim would be, "Every object gets its own 
> container." If no available container tag fits the 
> requirements, then perhaps we should add another container 
> element. But not put an empty element in-between.
> There's plenty of use cases for <separator>, you say. Well, 
> there are several use cases for <br>, but it still can be 
> completely replaced by the <l> tag. Which I, personally, much 
> prefer, because I like to keep my documents generic, and that 
> means making every structural element (including explicitely 
> separated lines) directly addressable as the content of a single tag.
> Objects separated by <br> or <sep> are not addressable. They 
> are reflected only by a text node (a rather unstable object 
> that, for example, cannot have an ID) in the infoset and the 
> DOM, and it's not possible to select them using CSS. That 
> alone makes these tags inferior to container tags.
> 
> Sebastian Redl
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 22:14:15 UTC