HTML should be semantic all the time. There shouldn't be another
category of HTML that is, and one that isn't.
Ideally perhaps, but as we all know (and this is the reason this
discussion is taking place), most HTML on the web contains significant
amounts of presentational markup. Presentational elements are still in
the html 4 spec. Many tools produce presentational html.
So if you just have tutorials on 'HTML' almost all your target audience
will think "I already know html", and skip it. But if you talk about
"Semantic HTML", novices may be curious, and the more expert will
probably still be interested.
I'm of the opinion that "Semantic HTML" is a perfectly fine term for
Semantic HTML, and I'm a little sceptical of the utility of a new
acronym for it. If there's a problem with people still not understanding
semantic html, either the arguments for it aren't being made clear
enough and loud enough, or maybe the arguments simply don't chime with
html authors ' perceptions of what they are doing.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
