- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:33:12 +0100
- To: "'Orion Adrian'" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Hi Orion, > And while we can be generic with element names and use @role > to clarify I think we're much better off with structural > roles tightly integrated with tags. If not then everything is > either <div> or <span>. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that we should have specific elements to define structure, but if that is your suggestion, I would just say that not doing does not automatically lead to just a collection of <div>s and <span>s. One of the main motivations for @role came from work by various accessibility experts. The idea was to be able to tell some processor more about what some part of a document was there for. Although initially intended to help voice systems to provide a better experience for users, it soon became apparent that the same principles would apply to mobile devices, too. For example, if a BBC news story can be delivered to the Vodafone or Orange news servers with a clear indication of which part of the story is navigation info, and which is the actual story, then the server could do some processing before delivering it to a mobile phone. This might, for example, involve putting all the navigation info onto a menu on a button, so leaving the entire display free for as much of the content as possible. And of course a voice browser would also benefit since it could skip past the navigation section, straight to the main content. All of this probably makes a lot of sense, but what if the main content was in some other element than a <div> or <span>? It might be some other HTML element (a <p> or <section> for example), or it might be in some element from another language that has been embedded into XHTML 2, such as an SVG text element. The point is that @role allows the voice browser or other application to still pick out the key points in the document. (One of the original architects of @role, T. V. Raman, called this kind of feature 'cross-cutting', since it has relevance regardless of the mark-up language being used.) > The difference here between structure > and semantics is that structural elements should have only > one role, but potentially many semantic classes. A div > shouldn't both be navigation and content at the same time. > Though I could be wrong. There is no reason why something might not have more than one role. For example, a list of links to stories from an RSS feed is both the content and the navigation. Some sample XHTML 2 that shows how this is done is in an article on my blog, titled "XHTML 2 as the 'Universal Document'" (it's in the January archives). 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/
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 16:33:46 UTC