Re: [whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
Spartanicus wrote: Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Google, Yahoo and MSN aren't in the business of enforcing a standards- compliance agenda. Who is? A better question to ask would be to whom does it matter?. Is it really relevant to give your opinion of my grammer? SE's have nothing to gain from markup validity. Of course they do. Better markup makes the results of their web page analysis more accurate, especially when semantic markup is involved. That can lead to better search engine results. They should serve up results relevant to their users, Again, you state should as if you are quoting from an authority. In a free market, I'm not aware of such an authority except in limited cases where I don't see that this applies. So should is just your narrow viewed opinion which is no more correct than my broader viewed opinion. And at the risk of sounding snarky, can you point me to a reference where is it codified that they are not (at least partially) in the business of standards? http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tech.msn.com Should give some indication. This only indicates that they don't observe standards themseleves, not what business they are in. Cobbler's children go barefoot, as they say. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Re: [whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
Henri Sivonen wrote: On Dec 21, 2006, at 15:06, Mike Schinkel wrote: Henri Sivonen wrote: Google, Yahoo and MSN aren't in the business of enforcing a standards- compliance agenda. Who is? I may be missing something obvious, but I can't think of anyone who'd by in the business of enforcing Web standards per se. Depending on country, disability interest groups (what's the right term?) or governments may in the business of enforcing accessibility, which is related. It was a rhetorical question to make the point you just made. Presumably, they care about moving Web apps forward. That doesn't mean their business includes *enforcing* standards by putting violators on the stocks. Agreed. But it is something that could potentially see a lot of improvement compared to status quo, and I can't think of nor have I heard any other proposals for anything else that would. And certainly the current situation is suboptimal. I think this mailing list is not the right place to speculate what search engines could or won't do. I suggest pitching the enforcement ideas to search engine providers directly. My problem is I don't know anyone at those search engines to pitch to, and unfortunately I don't currently have the funding to devote any more time to it than to float a trial balloon. I did that here hoping someone at one of the three would think it something to consider... (But I'm happy to terminate discussion on it here, but we all should do the same.) -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Re: [whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Google, Yahoo and MSN aren't in the business of enforcing a standards- compliance agenda. Who is? A better question to ask would be to whom does it matter?. Is it really relevant to give your opinion of my grammer? I didn't, who is [in the business of enforcing a standards- compliance agenda] is a different question than to whom does [standards compliance] matter. I wanted to make the point that standards compliance is in itself irrelevant to SE users/the average web user. SE's have nothing to gain from markup validity. Of course they do. Better markup makes the results of their web page analysis more accurate, especially when semantic markup is involved. That can lead to better search engine results. I'm not seeing much evidence of that. Afaics SEs are interested in text content, links, title content and if you're lucky they may treat header content slightly differently. They seem to treat the most of the other angled bracket stuff as noise, and justifiably so. Proper semantics and correctly structured content could be of benefit, but that is a very different, and much higher goal than mere compliance with the technical rules of a markup language. Markup validity is irrelevant to SEs, not only do they currently not care about it, they likely never will, since there's nothing to be gained from it. They should serve up results relevant to their users, Again, you state should as if you are quoting from an authority. In a free market, I'm not aware of such an authority except in limited cases where I don't see that this applies. So should is just your narrow viewed opinion which is no more correct than my broader viewed opinion. should (in lower case) should not g be read as per RFC 2119, that should be (I'm a bad boy) reserved to the upper case usage of the word. I'm going back to lurk mode, as I've strayed well beyond the purpose of this list (sorry). -- Spartanicus (email whitelist in use, non list-server mail will not be seen)
Re: [whatwg] Semantic styling languages in the guise of HTML attributes.
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: Leons Petrazickis wrote: I think what's wanted is a Cascading Semantics Language. I'm baffled. Why do we want this? What would it allow us to do? There are people who posted ideas about semantic properties for CSS on the www-style mailing list. They would likely be ecstatic about turning CSS into a cascading semantics language. Personally, this would be a greater nightmare than the |role| attribute. However, global attributes like |role| aren't much better. Attributes should specify the details of semantics that elements already possess. For example, |type| on an input element specifies the type of input. One of the example of the |role| attribute shows how you can provide values like checkbox to elements like span. I can understand assigning values such as these to DHTML container elements for accessibility purposes (and that might be a legitimate reason to create something like a global accessrole attribute or something similar), but |role| does not define any such limitations. Generally, though, this is just math. For every attribute or role you have that can apply to ALL elements, you have the semantics of all those elements to interact with, plus you have interactions between an indefinite number of global attributes that may be defined on that element. Without some sort of scope limitation, you can't possible define how the semantics of everything interacts. Think about the conversation regarding how simple nested elements in HTML interact with their parents and increase the complexity by several orders of magnitude.
Re: [whatwg] Semantic styling languages in the guiseof HTML attributes.
Matthew Raymond wrote: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: Leons Petrazickis wrote: I think what's wanted is a Cascading Semantics Language. I'm baffled. Why do we want this? What would it allow us to do? There are people who posted ideas about semantic properties for CSS on the www-style mailing list. They would likely be ecstatic about turning CSS into a cascading semantics language. Personally, this would be a greater nightmare than the |role| attribute. However, global attributes like |role| aren't much better. Attributes should specify the details of semantics that elements already possess. Why should attributes (only?) specify the details of semantics that elements already possess? Is there an axiom or W3C finding that we can reference for this? Generally, though, this is just math. For every attribute or role you have that can apply to ALL elements, you have the semantics of all those elements to interact with, plus you have interactions between an indefinite number of global attributes that may be defined on that element. Can you provide some concrete examples where that might cause a problem? -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
[whatwg] XObject basic proposal
To all,
I've been writing a spec called 'XObject' for the past week.. and i'm
going on a 2-day vacation from tomorrow.. just got the idea of sharing
this with you. I wrapped it up in a small site-like thingy in the
short time i had.. so the site is not really good... but the content
is there as much as i have worked on. It is still a work in progress.
Do read the foreword there, I've already warned about some factual
inaccuracies... :)
Here is the link to it: http://xobject.tritiumx.com
Please tell me your take on it.. and a Merry Christmas and Happy
holidays to one all on the list.
In that, I've made references to another HTML spec called
'HTMLResources', which i'm currently working on and shall soon share
with you.
Thanks,
Rohan Prabhu
--
{Ro}h(a)[n]_-_[P]{rab}(h)u
Re: [whatwg] XObject basic proposal
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:45:50 +0100, Rohan Prabhu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the link to it: http://xobject.tritiumx.com This looks a lot like XBL http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/ I think. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
