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

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:08:16 +0100, Nicholas Shanks  
<contact at nickshanks.com> wrote:
>> How does that help anyone? Putting them in a custom XML vocabulary
>> drops all semantics directly. (Unless a search engine does some
>> heuristics on element names I suppose.) Custom XML vocabularies are
>> really not something you want to have on the web as its implied
>> they have no known semantics.
>
> Not true.

Well, that depends on your definition of custom vocabulary I suppose.


> XHTML, MathML and SVG are all custom vocabularies with very widely
> known semantics.

  1. I wouldn't call the custom.
  2. Internet Explorer and Google don't get them...


> There's nothing preventing a future "CodeML" syntax from being
> understood by Koders and Google Code Search.

It's not clear to me what the advantage of putting a few elements into a  
"separate" vocabulary is. I actually think that those type of document  
semantics, including math, should just be part of HTML.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>