- From: Noah Scales <noahjscales@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:27:25 -0800 (PST)
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Hi, Laurens. My creative use of the word "meaning", as in, "display meaning", or "display semantics", has to do with meaning to a browser, not meaning to a software agent. You think that CSS doesn't give meaning to HTML, that it just gives HTML mark-up display semantics. Sure, in the same way that accompanying CSS styles my custom hypertext mark-up. The only difference is that browsers have default CSS interpretations of the "meaning" of HTML coded into them. You wrote: "With regard to your comparison of the two documents, I really do not think that your XML is any better than the HTML. In that XML I see 99% overlap with HTML, just differently named elements." Anyone is capable of writing mixed-content mark-up whose elements are ordered and nested so that a browser can display it. So lets write CSS to let file formats like DOCBOOK and OPENDOCUMENT display as hypertext. In docbook, table-of-contents, cross-references, and index elements make good hyperlinks. You wrote: "RDF or even OWL. XHTML 2.0 will also provide additional hooks for that in the form of the role and property attributes." Too much work, Laurens. Humans read my mark-up through the browser display. Search engines process my CSS to find stuff they'd like to index for others to find. Good enough. I'd like hypertext-browsing mixed content XML documents to be simple and transformation-free. So browsers require just a CSS file that specifies document formatting, including formatting features relevant to hypertext, like anchors (xpointer?) and hyperlinks. Anyway, Laurens, I really should leave the list and stay away. Thanks, once again, for your responses. -Noah __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 21:27:39 UTC