- From: Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:50:51 +0200
- To: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Mike Schinkel schrieb: >> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples >> "markup that expresses semantics is usually preferred to purely >> presentational markup" -- So you can't deprecate a semantic element in >> favor of a presentational one. > I was not asking to deprecate <blockquote>. It still have significant > value. But it is very often misused simple to gain an indent which is > what I was proposing. Well, you wrote "vs. <blockquote>", and it has been requested to deprecate <blockquote> for reasons similar to yours. >> "HTML Strikes a balance between semantic expressiveness and practical >> usefulness." -- Explicitly removing semantics can't be considered as a >> balance. (I neither think <indent> would be useful.) > I wasn't proposing removing semantics. I was proposing adding an element > with reduced semantics that could be used when another would often be > misused. The thing is, people think presentational even if the want semantics. If there's <indent>, people will use that to indent text that they want to quote. Otherwise, we could also reanimate <font>. >>> Did I say that? (Asked another way, since when do *browsers* >>> generally recognize semantics in markup?) >> So you expect accessible browser X to recognize <indent class="quote"> >> as a quote? > I didn't say that either. Why do you keep trying to attribute to me > statements I did not make? I expected that you wanted to make that statement, since we need accessible browsers to recognize semantics. >> I can't tell you the year, but certain browsers have to do that in >> order to present content to disabled users. > Have to do what? "recognize semantics in markup". >> It can also be important for software apart from browsers, like search >> engines. > Important how? Search engines have to weight content. --dao
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 09:51:13 UTC