Pentasis schrieb:
This I understand, and I can even sympathise with it. However, I do hope
that at least "they" will take this issue seriously and at least try to
build in something that will enable "us" to work on that part of the spec
independantly later on. I still think that the semantic part has very,
very little to do with the technical side of the spec. so somewhere the
two should be able to split up.
I am not sure whether I understand you correctly... Of course the
practical use of a specification lies in its technical implementations, or
do you disagree with that? You are free to specify your own markup
language, but it will be useless if there is no kind of mechanism to
interpret the documents marked up that way. So I don't understand how the
technical side could be split away.
Strictly speaking, does it matter for the DOM or parser or whatever, if a
tag is named and used like: <abbr title="description">someword</abbr> or
like this:
<reference class="abbreviation" ttle="some
description">someword</reference>.
I don't see how that would make things technically different?
The same applies for the difference in (for example) <code>blabla</code> or
<p class=code>blabla</p>.
Obviously there are constructs thinkable where the two would indeed at least
rub shoulders like for example in nesting headers, but I am sure something
like that is not a major issue and would only mean the two specs need to
come to agreement with somethings like that.
Another example (just a thought, don't take it seriously) What if we
eliminate headers alltogether and specify that the title attribute of a
section is the header. Now, in that case I agree one should colaborate with
the technical department. But in the grand scheme of things, those are minor
points surely?
Bert
