- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:26:40 +0300 (EEST)
- To: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > 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? XHTML 2.0 is supposed to be incompatible with any previous version of HTML (so that it would be more appropriate and less confusing to give it a completely new name and start the version numbering of the new language from 1.0, but version number confusion is an HTML tradition, starting from HTML 2.0). What I was referring to was that <samp> and <code> elements are examples of simple and meaningful markup that has some actual software support beyond mere rendering issues. The more complex a markup language you design, with semantics hidden obscurely into attributes, the more probable is that it will remain effectively as a system of text processing macros: people use markup to achieve the default rendering that they associate with markup elements - but software developers won't use the semantic information for anything. It's not just a matter of the difficulty of finding the semantic pieces; more importantly, if the markup system is complex, people won't use the complex features or they will use them inconsistently and against the specifications. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 17:27:51 UTC