- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:03:11 -0600
- To: Tantek Çw ==elik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
>>>>> First, we are not only talking about HTML elements. XBL has the >>>>> ability to bind semantics to new tags. There is no specification >>>>> for those new tags. >>>> >>>> And therefore those new tags have no semantics, no meaning. >>> >>> Thanks for writing that. I hope everyone reads that. New tags have >>> no meaning according to Ian Hickson. >> >> That is correct. > >I too agree with this position. I can find no evidence to support this position, but there is evidence from Tim Berners-Lee which suggests that both you and Ian are wrong: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0062.html [...] >> People should not be sending any elements that have no predefined >> normative semantics over the network. >> >> This is one of the fundamental cornerstones of accessible Web design. > >Again, strongly agreed. Again Tim Berners-Lee disagrees with you (he is against centralized semantics): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0059.html Since Tim Berners-Lee founded the W3C, and since he is the main driving force behind Semantic Web, I think you better yield to his expertise. >>> Need I say any more? Why would any one markup a page with tags that >>> have no meaning? >> >> That is a question very well worth asking, and one which has often >> been overlooked by the XML groupies who jump on the bandwagon as it >> goes past. > >So true. Very sad, but true. Not just XML groupies, but self-proclaimed >so-called XML experts who have written books on the subject have made (are >making) this mistake as well. > >You might say there is even the potential for XML to enable a "destruction >of the tower of babel" like scenario - with thousands of non-interoperable >languages springing forth which communicate some implied (but unspecified) >level of meaning among their micro-communities, but which actually destroy >communication across communities. Actually Tim Berners-Lee argues that centralization is what causes failure: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0059.html >>> I can't fathom where you get the idea that someone can or would >>> author a web page without having some clue what the tag meanings >>> are. > >I know, isn't it incredible? I can't fathom that someone can or would >author HTML without having read the HTML4 (or any HTML) specification. I >can't imagine that anyone would use <b> tags to mean heading, and <br> tags >to mean paragraph separator (which are of course, not the "meanings", if >any, of the <b> and <br> tags). Where could you possibly get the idea that >people would do such things? Sort of proves my point doesn't it? Specification is not all powerful. >>> I suggest you re-read the ENTIRE thread, therein you will find some >>> of my thoughts on this. > >Shelby, the email medium is very poor for representing the depth and >richness of your thoughts on this. Agreed. > It is unreasonable to ask and/or expect >Ian or anyone else to re-reread the ENTIRE thread to try to understand your >thoughts. > >I have tried to read every email on this thread all the way through as they >were posted, and *I* have lost track of the number of different points being >made, and the latest "debate status" of each. Perhaps I am simply too >intellectually inferior to keep up. I get the feeling that I am not the >only member of this list who is starting to "tune out" of this thread. > >I suggest for everyone's benefit (including your own) that you instead >summarize your points in a online essay (hosted at your website), titled >something appropriate, like: My summary posts (read in this order): Semantics: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0057.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0062.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0059.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0053.html Last summary post of XSLT and XBL differences (conceptual example): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0049.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0040.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0039.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0037.html Near last summary post of XSLT and XBL differences: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0228.html Key summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0201.html First post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0171.html Examples: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0216.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Dec/0175.html [...] >If you really care about getting your point across to the W3C community, you >care about making your point accessible to as many members of the W3C >community as possible. A well written richly semantically marked up* essay >would serve this purpose far better than the current prolonged email >dialogue for this topic. Phew, I do not think I could manage at this time. My posts above should suffice for now. If XBL gets momentum to becoming a standard (and especially under CSS group) then I may consider doing as you suggest. Then again, I may just be too busy. I make money implementing, not writing specifications. My only goal was to share info and find out if there were any major holes in my logic. Now that I understand Ian's disagreement, and now that I have proven his definition of semantics is not supported by references on web, then I feel confident I have gotten what I wanted out of this exchange. I think I can let this standard as my final response on this thread. Hopefully in some months, with links to commercial examples in XSLT (running on all browsers in 2003! :-) -Shelby Moore
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 17:02:07 UTC