- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:12:11 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Quoting David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>: > Their correct use isn't actually particularly narrow, almost any > user instruction manual for any piece of modern technology will use > all of these constructs [...] > Also web sites are creations of computing technology so the help > pages for web sites are particularly likely to require these constructs. Not that I can be bothered to start counting them, but I'd submit to you the there is more wealth of knowledge, specialisms, areas of interest, etc which is being conveyed by web sites worldwide that is quite distinct from anything technical requiring these elements. Mathematics, chemistry, logic, philosophy, medicine...all these would also benefit from their own elements to accurately mark up their content, so why is it that computing technology is "built in" to XHTML 2.0 while these others aren't? Just because "you write XHTML 2.0 on a computer"? 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 Wednesday, 23 August 2006 09:16:44 UTC