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.
I think that's a really good point, and I completely agree.
Regarding the points not being clear or loud enough though, I'm not so
sure. There are *always* going to be people who don't fully understand
things, especially as they're getting to grips with them, and attempting
to run (eg. microformats) before they can walk (eg. semantic HTML).
We've just got to live with it (that's not to say we can't help), rather
than think there's some immense crisis that needs to be (or rather
*can*) be solved.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
