[whatwg] The utility function for semantics in HTML
Matthew Paul Thomas
mpt at myrealbox.com
Sat Nov 4 08:00:09 PST 2006
On Nov 1, 2006, at 11:55 AM, James Graham wrote:
> ...
> To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
> people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
To maximize the utility (usefulness) of documents using it. But this is
a complicated function.
* Less presentational -> more medium-independent -> accessible to more
people -> greater utility. (Examples: people using screenreaders or
search engines.)
* More semantic -> harder to learn and understand -> fewer documents
using it -> less utility. (Example: DocBook.)
* More semantic -> harder to learn -> simpler alternatives invented
-> learning and/or transcoding-to-HTML effort required -> less
utility. (Examples: Markdown, BBCode, the various
partly-incompatible wiki syntaxes, and any Web comment form that
allows -- or doesn't convey whether it allows -- a subset of HTML.)
* More semantic -> more machine-analyzable -> greater utility.
(Examples: Google's PageRank with <a>, Google Sets with <ul>.)
* Less presentational -> more semantically-misused -> less
machine-analyzable -> less utility. (Example: XHTML2's attempt to
kill <b> and <i>, resulting in more misuse of <strong> and <em>.)
Many people concentrate on one or two of these effects and gloss over
the others, so their idea of the overall utility function is warped.
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list