- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:03:38 +0100
- To: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >> <var>i</var> => <code role="compsci:variable">i</code> > > Some automatic translation programs recognize <samp> and/or <code> > markup and treat the element's content as something that shall not be > translated. Wasn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be NOT backwards compatible, or do you mean there are automatic translation programs who currently recognise XHTML 2.0 already? > I can imagine why (though I don't agree about <samp>): these elements > have mostly been used by their good old HTML definitions, which are > semantically relatively clear, so programs can actually make some use of > them and avoid foolishness like translating command and function names > when processing a text that mentions them. Does anyone honestly expect > programs to do such things with role="..." attributes? If a convention is established, I wouldn't think it unreasonable. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 17:03:52 UTC