[whatwg] Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5
jworent at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 1 18:45:38 PST 2006
--- James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:24:17 +0100, Christoph Päper
> > <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
> >> And HTML5 isn't that semantically pure anyway.
> > Where can it be improved?
> To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what
> people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
I've always thought that an element was semantically correct if its
name alone conveyed, or at
least gave some indication, of how the element is to be used. This of
course has to be balanced
with compatibility. IMHO a, q, m, x and t all lack semantic richness.
Obviously some of these
couldn't be changed, like a. But if you think about it, how would
someone that doesn't know html
know that a meas anchor, and for that matter how is "anchor" indicative
of a link. I'm not
suggesting a be changed, as I said a balance has to be found and some
names can't be made more
┌────── Jonathan Worent ──────┐
└───────── Webmaster ─────────┘
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com
More information about the whatwg