[WSG] reading the spec [WAS: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?]
At 6/4/2007 07:22 PM, Steve Green wrote: Day after day in this forum some people seem to be hell-bent on abusing the standards like this? Why? I think the 'why' is important enough to merit mention; it's not just a rhetorical question. Most of us are trying to create the most sensible pages we can. To do so we're using an incredibly sparse markup language with a few very specific elements, a few vague ones, and enormous gaps between them. We've all wished fruitlessly for HTML to support our efforts to mark up content more semantically, and we're always looking for better ways to do it. No wonder there are surges of effort to create the next generation of HTML. Some elements of markup must be taken quite literally (horizontal rule) while others are quite loose and metaphorical (span). Human language at its very essence is metaphor. Depending on how you squint at it, the spec can be read very loosely (the road to ruin) or very strictly (the road to the padded cell). While the DTD is strict in its stipulations of which elements can contain which others, the spec's verbal descriptions of markup elements and the examples given are often interpetable from a variety of angles, as we see every day in this list. There's lots of wiggle-room in the HTML spec for wishful, well-meaning web developers to seek elements that can be comfortably stretched to cover a usage that might not have occurred to others. I often wonder what the authors of the HTML spec feel when they observe us web developers arguing over usage. A certain pride, for sure, but also perhaps some embarrassment... on our behalf or their own? So often we treat the document like it's a holy writ passed down from on high, while it's really just a document written by some folks. The description of the definition list is a prime example. Few of us question the meanings of the words definition and list and yet the atuhors of the HTML spec opened the door wide, first using the alternative term description for the DD and then adding, Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words. The authors explicitly encouraged us to interpret the element name definition list to include structures that are not strictly definitions and even arguably lists. If a dialog can be marked up as a list then why not use an unorderd list markup for a series of paragraphs? (Please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not arguing here that we ought to do so, I'm merely sketching the anatomy of our disagreements.) The vast majority of the debates of markup usage and semantics I read -- and take part in -- turn on this very point: how metaphorically may we interpret the spec? I have sympathy for those who want to stretch the small, threadbare blanket of HTML to try to cover our broad work; and I have sympathy for those who argue that a consistent interpretation of the spec is necessary to build a solid body of markup for the content-parsers of today and the future. We are all justified. Perhaps our debates would be kinder if we ruminated longer on our shared plight: abandoned on a barren planet with only fifty kinds of parts with which to build everything we need. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] reading the spec [WAS: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?]
On 6/5/07, Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps our debates would be kinder if we ruminated longer on our shared plight: abandoned on a barren planet with only fifty kinds of parts with which to build everything we need. Well said. In all a very insightful post. I agree, generally we're all trying to do our best with what we have. However, some of us are pedantic about using the most appropriate element possible while others are happy to use something that makes sense in their styling context. I think some of us (myself included) lose touch a little when we see someone do something differently to how we would, and start getting all high and mighty. In a way, it's so easy to do, because we are passionate about what we do. I think that's why we clash horns so often, because we do care. But so many developers don't care at all, so I think we should remember that we're generally on the same side on this list. Regards, Blake -- Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] reading the spec [WAS: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?]
I know I said I didn't want to post to this again, but some points have been raised which I just can't help responding to. I am an advocate of standards. But the standards shouldn't be the first place we run whenever the way gets unclear. It's been said in this thread already that there are an awful lot of grey areas in the specs, and an awful lot of developers and designers out there trying to do just about everything imaginable with HTML, much of which is done with absolutely no regard for the specs, accessibility, or usability (and I get crucified here for merely wandering into one of the grey areas?). It should also be of no surprise that the original specs, when written, couldn't possibly predict the varied uses that HTML is now being shoehorned into. This is exactly why there is so much effort currently going on to come up with a new spec that will cope with the evolving nature and use of HTML. The shortcomings of HTML are self evident. Why else are we here trying to redesign it? So my question is: Is this group, as part of the Web Standards Group, about being visionaries and looking for ways to advance the use of HTML (and drag the specs along behind if necessary)? Or are we a bunch of conservative fundamentalists who believe the current specs are gospel and the anyone who doesn't *believe* should be cudgeled to death with them? To put it another way: Are we advocates for HTML, or for the specifications? And no, I'm not calling myself a visionary. But I'm inviting everyone here to be one, and not get stuck in the minutia of the specs, as if that all that matters. Lucien. Lucien Stals [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/06/07 6:52 PM On 6/5/07, Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps our debates would be kinder if we ruminated longer on our shared plight: abandoned on a barren planet with only fifty kinds of parts with which to build everything we need. Well said. In all a very insightful post. I agree, generally we're all trying to do our best with what we have. However, some of us are pedantic about using the most appropriate element possible while others are happy to use something that makes sense in their styling context. I think some of us (myself included) lose touch a little when we see someone do something differently to how we would, and start getting all high and mighty. In a way, it's so easy to do, because we are passionate about what we do. I think that's why we clash horns so often, because we do care. But so many developers don't care at all, so I think we should remember that we're generally on the same side on this list. Regards, Blake -- Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
