- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:46:19 -0500
- To: "'Tantek Celik'" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Ummm.... XHTML is an XML application, so that guideline doesn't make explicit sense. There is nothing wrong with having an XML presentation language other than having a browser that can interpret and render it. Just genCoding. SGML tried to kill that too. The W3C brought it back as HTML. Separation of content from presentation or rendering is not a very strong guideline either. The problem is that you are singling out one semantic and holding it separate (essentially, the late bound one) while encouraging other semantics to be tightly bound without having a way to indicate the semantic itself without resorting to other means (documented namespace URIs, comments, the usual list). I generally agree with the use of content-centric schemas given a community of understanding, but unless there is also something at the end of the namespace URI, it isn't very easy to know when someone is on or off the bus. There isn't a one sized fits all rule here. There is just a practice that says name it for the maximum amount of unambiguous reuse (the greatest number of communities of understanding) and bind late whereever efficient to the local semantic of any given community. len -----Original Message----- From: Tantek Celik [mailto:tantek@cs.stanford.edu] One conclusion that can be drawn from Guideline 3 is: "XML elements and attributes SHOULD NOT be used for presentation." I believe this to be a sound architectural principle, and one that I _thought_ W3C had adopted as a whole many many years ago when such elements and attributes were deprecated from HTML4.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 14:46:54 UTC