- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:04:41 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On 26 Apr, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> * Presentational elements are ADDED. M, anyone? This is the realm
>> of CSS; discard.
>
> <m> is not presentational, you just misunderstand its purpose. It
> indicates relevance in a given context. There are multiple ways in
No, I don't think I do actually, but I would postulate that the WHATWG
has misunderstood the concept of a markup language.
The M element, as you say, 'indicate relevance in a given context'; in
prose described as "The m element represents a run of text marked or
highlighted."
The first example given is:
<p>The highlighted part below is where the error lies:</p>
<pre><code>var i: Integer;
begin
i := <m>1.1</m>;
end.</code></pre>
Let's look at the word "highlight". A thesaurus would give 'emphasis'
as a synonym for 'highlight', and as I see it that's exactly how it is
used in the example.
In the second example, M is used in a way that actually deprive the
user of information - as a "highlighted term" isn't necessarily a term
which is the target of a search. It's simply highlighted, made to
stand out - styled.
No, this element doesn't need revision - it needs to be taken out, and
replaced with EM and, if required, more semantic elements.
>> * Elements from HTML 4 which have known accessibility issues, such
>> as IFRAME, are kept.
>
> There is nothing inherently inaccessible about iframe, though, like
> anything, it can be used in inaccessible ways. It provides a nested
> browsing context and is much more interoperable than object is, when
> used for the same purpose.
Then the same goes for FRAMESET. Both have severe accessibility
problems when used wrong - and some would argue when used at all - and
we can't argue this way.
Either the presentational bits go, or we're left with a
half-presentational language as since HTML 3.2.
Is that what we want?
>> * Elements which DO contain semantics - even if rarely used - are
>> being tossed out, such as ACRONYM. Why did you remove that?
>
> In reality, the <abbr> and <acronym> are synonymous with each other.
> Amusingly, the HTML4 definition for <acronym> does not match the
No, in reality they are /not/. In the usage patterns of some web
authors they are. It's not the same.
> HTML. Why fight against that? It is much more practical to enhance
> the language to make that easier, than try and force them to switch
> to a new development platform.
Because I do not believe in one-language-fit-all scenarios. We /need/
a document language. HTML5 is the logical choice. Others need an
application language. Great - then start /that/ from scratch and get
it right.
One-size-fits-all doesn't even work in pantyhose. A content-centric
markup language with rich semantics is /needed/. This is the last
chance we have to get it right and still remain in the realm of HTML.
That's why.
>> * FONT. Need I say more? Editors are to use it, browsers are to
>> ignore it? Get rid of it.
>
> As I said in a previous post, this is a very much disputed section.
It shouldn't be. It shouldn't even be in question at this time.
Basically ... none of the issues that I, working with the web and with
accessibility for some time, raise are considered a problem by you. I
find that a difficult thing to understand.
These /are/ real world issues. I'm not seeing them addressed before
the WA1 is adopted, which will make it /much/ harder to get them
addressed after, IMHO.
>> Perhaps we should create a user-driven group that can take on the
>> task of cleaning up HTML 4, and present that as an alternative. The
>> HTMLWG would, I presume, give that equal consideration.
>
> You are free to join the HTMLWG, do the necessary work and put forth
> that as a proposal if you wish.
I can. I might. What's the deadline for such a proposal?
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net
+46 708 557 905
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 15:04:52 UTC