So called 'semantic classnames' are not semantic at all except in the case of microformats. The whole point of semantic markup is that the author and user agree on the terminology and the meaning, and that is not the case with semantic classnames no matter how obvious they may seem to you.
Microformats are the only case I know of where the meanings of classnames have been agreed, published and have some level of take-up. It is possible that smaller groups of people have created their own private schemas. At the moment, HTML5 doesn't really bring a significant benefit, but that will change (in years rather than months). Steve ________________________________ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au Sent: 24 January 2011 22:45 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x Hello, Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced new semantic elements such as <header>, <aside> etc., but does this really increase the expressive power of the markup? Can't the same thing be achieved in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. <p class="header">)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
