- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:17:07 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- cc: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-html@w3.org
On 29 Apr, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2007, at 16:38, Tina Holmboe wrote:
>
>> At the moment, after the recent discussions, I believe the question
>> remaining is: do "we" want "good" markup, or simply markup as
>> supported by one of a small group of browsers?
>>
>> Or, perhaps better: do we want semantic markup?
>
> More to the point, even if "we" want it, is it realistic to expect
> casual authors to produce semantic markup?
>
> HTML has a remarkable large author base that extends beyond markup
> purists.
Call me prickly if you want, but is it really necessary to use
emotionally laden terms such as "markup purists" in a serious
discussion?
My answer to the above is yes. If the tools, which people do appear to
root for, become better. I would without hesitation say that an author
who takes the trouble of manually writing markup both should and ought
have learnt to use the features of the language.
If, on the other hand, "we" have decided HTML 5 isn't going to bother
with semantic details - as does appear likely from the debate here -
then the tools need not bother either; browsers OR editors.
So let's have it. Are we going to bother with semantics, or are we
going to keep tossing "anti-presentationalists" and "markup purists"
around?
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net
+46 708 557 905
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 19:17:19 UTC