On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaaaah! Sorry, I hadn't understood this. So, to put it another way, you want a way to introduce author-specific semantics into your HTML documents?
Almost. I want to understand why non-HTML5-defined semantics would be harmful. I don't think we're in danger of each web author inventing their own elements.
> <http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008171.html> > > But it is a question, not a request. I don't want to request something > that would be harmful. So, what is the downside of the example in that > earlier email? Well, SVG itself would arguably be bad because it is poor from a semantic standpoint.
HTML is poor from a semantic standpoint. Doesn't bother me. I make layouts with tables and headings with bold and lists with sequences of <p> tags. I'll probably never write pretty HTML, and I wouldn't be surprised if billions of people are just like me. Is HTML5 going to prevent me from authoring in that style?
However, as far as generic author-defined semantics go, that's what the "class" attribute is for. Microformats.org, for example, use the "class" attribute to introduce calendar semantics and the like into HTML. You take the closest fitting HTML element, semantically, and then augment it with your classes.
Yes, I understand those, and I think they might work. Why is it harmful to allow the document I posted in the mail below as well? <http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008171.html>
Introducing author-defined markup into HTML would be bad from a semantic and accessibility point of view because UAs would not be able to derive any meaningful information or default presentation from the content, and thus users would not be able to access the data.
Right, so no one will use those things unless browsers support them. Is that bad? -- Robert Sayre
