- From: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:22:59 EDT
- To: howcome@opera.com, www-style@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <17d.d028425.2a937283@aol.com>
In a message dated 20/08/2002 10:44:06 GMT Daylight Time, howcome@opera.com writes: > Also sprach Svgdeveloper@aol.com: > > > > > All HTML tells you is that something is a paragraph, a level 1 > > > > heading, a table, monospaced, preformatted, and a few other things. > > > > <SINGER>Madonna</SINGER> is more semantic than <SPAN>Madonna</SPAN>. > > > > > > You can combine the two: > > > > > > <span class="singer">Madonna</span> > > > This, I humbly suggest, is a recipe for disaster. > > How is: > > <span class="singer">Madonna</span> > > more disasterous than > > <SINGER>Madonna</SINGER> > > The word "singer" is ambigous in both cases (sowing machine? author? > music?). Hakon, Please take a look at my issue request at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0266.html That may help you understand the issues as I presently see them. Adding a class attribute in HTML could, in principle, provide some information about what I term "Element Type Name Semantics". However, it doesn't add what I termed "Structural Semantics". For example, if a <singer> element were nested within a <CDCatalogue> element or a < SewingMachineManufacturers> element we (but perhaps not computers) get additional semantic information. Similarly, if the <singer> element had a namespace declaration xmlns="http://www.sopranos.com" we get at least a hint of Namespace semantics too. If, in addition, we have metadata related to that namespace information we likely will get yet another aspect of semantics added. Do you believe that these additional dimensions of semantics can be captured and expressed within a class attribute in HTML/XHTML? Regards Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 06:23:36 UTC