- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:16:18 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > More to the point, even if "we" want it, is it realistic to expect > casual authors to produce semantic markup? I suspect that most casual authors would be just as happy with sending final form over the wire, in which case the only revisable form that needs to exist is that proprietary to the authoring tool. (You lose accessibility advantages, but that wont' concern most authors. Google already indexes final form (PDF) documents.) They might even be happier with final form, as the appearence would be more predictable. The real thing that stops them is that they don't understand the technology well enough to consider that there might be alternatives. If you look at tools like ASP.NET and MS Reporting Services, they use HTML to generate essentially fixed format documents, and, in the latter case, offer PDF and bitmaps as well. ASP.NET is Windows forms on web browsers, and only uses HTML because web browsers use it. Also, as has been pointed out, and as Apple's iWeb demonstrates, authors can be quite happy with only div, span, img and a sent over the wire in the body. With semantic free HTML, almost everything is in the style attributes. That suggests that HTML5 has far too many element types for that market.
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 20:16:45 UTC