Geoff Pack wrote:
David Dorward wrote:
No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't.
Surely the semantic meaning is in the actual tag names, not just the
fact that they are standardised. It shouldn't matter as long as it's
understandable. Anyway, you can always re-use as many of the HTML tags
as you want, and make up your own when you need to.
No, the semantics come from its definition, not its tag name. If a spec
defines an element with the tag name <j79hfd98y28> to be for marking up
a person's name, then that's what it is. The tag name is just an opaque
string that doesn't affect the semantics in any way. It just helps
authors to have meaningful and memorable tag names.
However, if you create your own generic XML document, using tag names
like <name> and <address>, then those elements don't inherently have any
semantics at all. Although you may define your own semantics, unless
those semantics become known by others, the elements are meaningless to
everyone else, and your semantics are totally useless.
Semantics only become useful when there are tools that make use of them
in a useful way. The semantics in HTML documents are useful because
they are widely understood and implemented.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
