- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:43:18 +0100
- To: tina@greytower.net
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On 4 May 2007, at 16:35, Tina Holmboe wrote: > > On 4 May, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> Focusing on authors wanting to convey things is a common fallacy in >> semantic markup advocacy. > > Correct - but it isn't a fallacy. The entire point behind generic > coding and semantic markup is /communication/ - which is why > suddenly > changing the agreed-upon interpretation of <I> is as useful as > changing the meaning of word in mid conversation. > > Unless, of course, we are supposed to agree that semantic markup has > no value in the real world because a number of browser- and > editor-authors haven't got a clue and never did. > > Very well. The fact remain: despite the good, and logical, > intentions > of specification authors, the browsers, editors, and authors have > broken the web. > > <sarcasm> > > So lets simplify things. Tables, frames, and font for layout has > proven itself to WORK - for various narrow-minded definition of > "work" > - and so we should not only keep them, but encourage them. > > This piddling around the pond discussing which parts of "reality" to > support, and which to throw out because they "lack use cases", is > simply making things worse. > > Either decide to make HTML a proper, semantic, markup language, or > stuff it to the gills with whatever presentational hacks authors, > browsers, and editors wish. Hell, bring back marquee. Why should > that > poor tag be singled out? The fact remain: authors WANT IT and UAs > support it. > > </sarcasm> > Hear hear, and quite possibly without the sarcasm.
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 15:43:54 UTC