-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:57 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module
Trusz, Andrew wrote: > Here's how xhtml2.0 defines the text module which includes [sup] [...] > Note in particular the phrase "in this case it is intended to only > have a semantic meaning." That seems pretty clear. While that may or > may not be the current definition of [sup], it certainly seems to be > headed for a structural/semantic definition since it is defined in this module. So split hairs, "in this case *IT* is intended to only have a semantic meaning". The "semantic meaning" bit only refers to the use of the phrase 'inline level', not to the elements themselves... However, I'm waiting with baited breath to see how they're going to define the semantics of elements which are presentational already in their name, and can contain such disparate types of content as mathematic exponents and french abbreviations. I'll be the 1<sup>st</sup> one to cheer when it happens... -- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ You can let out your breath. The semantic meaning for the inline use is defined for the elements, attributes and content models defined in the module. That's the meaning of the entire paragraph: these are inline elements which have a structural meaning and those meanings are defined in this module. That's what the paragraph says; that's what the rule says. The [sup] element means superscript. The user agent is indicating that some element is a superscript. The content will provide the ontological framework for recognizing which meaning the user should attach to the superscript. So, an aural browser would provide very different renderings of "e=mc2" and "e=mc[sup]2". When that rendering is seen or heard, the context can be understood: a math expression, a date, a french abbreviation, etc. Language is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. It's worth remembering that the point of providing structural/semantic meaning to elements is to make it possible for machines to catch some of the sophistication hidden in that sloppiness. Inevitably, there will be friction between machine precision and human flexibility. Developing rules for every situation would result in a system so cumbersome that it would simply not be used -- which we almost have with sgml. Who knows, different definitions of [sup] may be broken out just as nl is extracted in xhtml2.0 from ul. Practice at times begets theory. drew ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
