[wp-docs] [Fwd: Re: Semantic HTML Tutorial]

[Scott Merrill]

I sent the Semantic HTML tutorial to my boss, who I consider to be a very
smart fellow.  Here's his feedback.  I'm sharing mainly to hear dissenting
opinions (if any) on the issues he raises.

Cheers,
Scott

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Semantic HTML Tutorial

On Monday 26 April 2004 8:43 am, you wrote:
> If you had said HTML 4.0, I'd likely agree with you.  I think the whole
point about XHTML, though, is that it's specifically an effort to
introduce the exactitude you speak of.  XHTML Transitional is the
bastard child / stepping stone that is supposed to get everyone to
transition over.  XHTML Strict is the pursits dream.

Apart from making sure that your tags are formed, closed and nested
properly,  I don't see how much of the talk about usage matters much even
for XHTML.   It's still HTML: not extensible, arbitrary.  CSS adds
"classes" (I hate this  use of the word "classes" where it means something
completely different in  OOP) to hijack the HTML elements, making them
"kind of" like XML, but it just  confuses the issue, I think.  We're only
going to get where we need to be  with XML.

>
> Obviously HTML has grown far beyond anything Tim Berners-Lee ever
envisioned, so the effort is being put forth to preserve as much
backward compatibilty as possible; because let's face it, HTML got a lot
"right" and there's value to preserving that.

I don't agree at all.  I don't even think the HTML concept makes things
easier  for beginners.  Native XML parsing by browsers is the answer now,
and should  have been 10 years ago.

Think about it: you define your XML tag to do and be exactly what you
want.   Or you import a predefined schema for "ready-made" behavior.  As
far as  semantics, you could call your tags "hoppy" and "bob" rather than
trying to  describe their platonic purpose in life.

The "semantics" argument, I believe, is a confusion between the data layer
and  the presentation layer.  The fact that even with XSLT it's nearly
impossible  to transform data into HTML presentation is the problem that
has plague HTML  from the beginning.  XHTML does nothing to help this
problem, except make  people feel that they are being "more rigorous."

>
> As for the <b> or <strong>, the semantic component is the largest issue,
yes.  But styling your <strong> tag in your CSS is, arguably, more
'portable' between multiple participating editors.
>
> Bob said:
> > I love how many people have taken an awkward, non-extensible markup
language
> > then are doctrinaire about its use.  This is good advice, but I'm
constantly
> > baffled why so many have replaced "<b>" with the far more expensive
"<strong>", etc.  Or "<em>" instead of "<i>".  I understand why,
"semantically," but all this serves to try to make HTML XML, implying
an exactitude which it cannot and will not ever have.  I think some of
these people are just impressed with themselves.  It reminds me of the
prescriptive
> > grammarians, who would say, "everyone loves his daughter" to mean
"every person loves his or her own daughter," rather than the more
natural "everyone
> > loves their daughter" which more people would understand, but is
"incorrect."
> > All this effort focussed on enforcing "standards" when the language
structure
> > itself has an inadequacy that should be addressed.  The answer for
HTML is to
> > get rid of it as soon as possible.
> >
> > On Sunday 25 April 2004 9:24 pm, you wrote:
> >> A good read for newbies and experienced coders alike:
> >>
> >> http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/