On 07/05/07, Keith Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Okay, yeah, that's fair. I think there should be an emphasis on teaching good semantic practices - which is ultimately what we all want - it's just how we go about that that differs in opinion. :)
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.
Agreed (but lets not call it SHTML or POSH, or anything other than "Semantic HTML" :) ). There's no harm in drumming in the semantic part as being of great importance by explicitely stating it in that way. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
