On 01/01/07, Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting that you should choose that example, because
it can mean different things depending on the element you use
it on. Therefore, a global |type| attribute would almost
certainly conflict with the element-specific attribute unless
Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
you have an opinion that few if any others are rallying behind.
Perhaps because it seems too obvious to discuss?
It doesn't seem obvious to anyone over on the microformat list, AFAICT. If
it is that critical, why are all those to whom it is obvious making the case
Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
Do you volunteer for the job of going through all role values
and all current HTML element semantics and define which one takes
presedence in each possible conflict? Matthew's point is that this
task itself is massive.
Since both roles and microformats are open
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Interesting that you should choose that example, because
it can mean different things depending on the element you use
it on. Therefore, a global |type| attribute would almost
certainly conflict with the element-specific attribute unless
it was defined otherwise.
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Why should attributes (only?) specify the details of semantics that
elements already possess?
Global attributes aren't necessarily wrong if their
By global do you simply mean attributes for HTML elements, i.e. a type
On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
...
Also, it seems to me that the usefulness of non-heuristic machine
consumption of semantic roles of things like dialogs, names of
vessels, biological taxonomical names, quotations, etc. has been
vastly
On Dec 26, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
...
Non-heuristic machine consumption fails when semantic elements are
abused, and becomes practical when elements have multiple popular
meanings (examples of the latter include dl in HTML 4, and p in
HTML 5).
That should have been
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
On Dec 21, 2006, at 05:21, Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 21 déc. 2006 à 00:23, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
Actually, structure is communicated to people using presentation.
Presentation isn't just about attractiveness.
Lao Niu puts his two fingers in the eyes of Henri in a Full contact
move. Henri is
I'm not always the most tactful or sensitive person. If my choice of
words in my original message offended you, I apologize. My passion for a
subject occasionally makes me blind to how others might interpret my
message.
However, that does not excuse your behavior. You talk about how
showing
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
semantic styling language
Sorry to interrupt, but I don't understand what this phrase means. How
would you define a semantic styling language differently from a
semantic markup language, a presentational markup language, and a
markup
Matthew Raymond wrote:
A semantic styling language would be a language to assign semantics
to elements in a manner similar to how CSS controls their presentations.
One could change attributes like |href| and |rule| into style sheet
properties and they'd still work in the exact same way, except
Le 20 déc. 2006 à 6:57, Matthew Raymond a écrit :
A presentational markup language would be like SVG or X3D.
They use
markup to create a presentation that may or may not be meaningful.
Huh, what is a meaningful presentation exactly? To me, what is
meaningful content is *not*
Matthew Raymond wrote:
A semantic styling language would be a language to assign semantics
to elements in a manner similar to how CSS controls their presentations.
FWIW, it seems that a better term for the concept you describe would be
semantic binding language, since presentation isn't
On Dec 20, 2006, at 16:18, Michel Fortin wrote:
Huh, what is a meaningful presentation exactly? To me, what is
meaningful content is *not* presentational. The presentation is the
way you arrange and surround your content to make it attractive (or
not).
Actually, structure is communicated
On 12/20/06, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
A semantic styling language would be a language to assign semantics
to elements in a manner similar to how CSS controls their presentations.
FWIW, it seems that a better term for the concept you describe would be
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think eschewing presentational features as a matter of principle
misses the point. The goal behind the principle is independence of
one client device or presentation media. A presentational feature can
be sufficiently independent of particular devices and media if
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?
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Le 20 déc. 2006 à 10:23, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
Actually, structure is communicated to people using presentation.
Presentation isn't just about attractiveness.
Point taken. It's about making the document understandable, readable,
*and* attractive.
I think eschewing presentational
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I'm not always the most tactful or sensitive person. If my
choice of words in my original message offended you, I
apologize. My passion for a subject occasionally makes me
blind to how others might interpret my message.
Apology accepted.
If you really want to
Le 21 déc. 2006 à 00:23, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
Actually, structure is communicated to people using presentation.
Presentation isn't just about attractiveness.
Lao Niu puts his two fingers in the eyes of Henri in a Full contact
move. Henri is blind. Henri is trying to kick the legs, and
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
In a world in which one CAN consider adding alternative
attributes (HTML 5, etc.), it makes no sense to me one would
simply say no.
[I'm cross posting to uf-discuss and whatwg because Bruce's comment was made
on uf-discuss but I've made the same
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I may not like the idea of semantics styling languages,
but what I like less is a series of half-a**ed
unconscious attempts to create semantics styling
integrated into HTML.
I may not like that you disagreed with me, but what I far less is for
someone to talk down to
Mike Schinkel wrote:
I may not like that you disagreed with me, but what I far less is for
someone to talk down to me in a public forum based on their *assumption*
that they know what *I* am thinking.
I think it's clear from the context of my previous message that I was
neither referring
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I think it's clear from the context of my previous message
that I was neither referring specifically to you, nor did I
make any claim to know your thoughts.
Based on the language you chose, that wasn't clear to me at all. Let me
quote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
No,
25 matches
Mail list logo
