On 2/9/06, Stephen Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not meaningless, It is more readable than HTML, to a human.  And
> when computers start to need to read websites automatically...

Humans read content, computers read markup. Humans don't read HTML
(excusing, perhaps, the rare breed that inhabit this list and certain
other niches of the web) for its semantics, relying instead on
visual/aural cues to determine the importance of content. Markup is
for computers. Computers need to read websites automatically today...
search engine, anyone? RSS/Atom auto-discovery in modern browsers?
Copying and pasting semantic web content as rich text into another
application? (If you're doing it all with CSS, the default "styles" of
elements are often inherited... with non-(machine-defined)-semantic
markup this isn't possible).

It IS meaningless for all intents and purposes. Consider a plain text
document: humans make a distinction between types of content,
computers do not... hence markup. Admittedly, we also use markup to
provide communication cues... but that's ancillary to the core of it.
Unpopular though this idea may be, web standards (recommendations,
whatever) are actually about ensuring that User Agents can do
something meaningful with what they're handed. It's the User Agent's
job to communicate that to the actual user... so we're catering for
machines, not humans.

The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Reply via email to