[whatwg] Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5

[Jonathan Worent]

--- 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 
do 
> 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
descriptive.

┌────── Jonathan Worent ──────┐
└───────── Webmaster ─────────┘


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com 
(http://www.yahoo.com/preview)