On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-06-06 2:53, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have rather been optimistic about future developments for markup
elements that have been defined exactly enough to warrant meaningful
semantics-based processing. For example, most of the uses
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
That might be realistic, especially there is no significant semantic
clarification in sight in general. This raises the question why we
could not just return to the original design
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
That might be realistic, especially there is no significant semantic
clarification in sight in general. This raises the question why we could
not just return to the original design with some physical markup like
i, b, and u
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-01-21 0:30, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I don’t think you have clarified whether var is suitable for
physical quantities, but I guess you meant to imply it—even though
there is not a single
2012-06-06 2:53, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have rather been optimistic about future developments for markup
elements that have been defined exactly enough to warrant meaningful
semantics-based processing. For example, most of the uses mentioned in
current text imply that var element contents should
