[whatwg] SPOOFED: Re: SPOOFED: Re: ---

[Pentasis]

> Pentasis schrieb:
>> This I understand, and I can even sympathise with it. However, I do hope 
>> that at least "they" will take this issue seriously and at least try to 
>> build in something that will enable "us" to work on that part of the spec 
>> independantly later on. I still think that the semantic part has very, 
>> very little to do with the technical side of the spec. so somewhere the 
>> two should be able to split up.
>
> I am not sure whether I understand you correctly... Of course the 
> practical use of a specification lies in its technical implementations, or 
> do you disagree with that? You are free to specify your own markup 
> language, but it will be useless if there is no kind of mechanism to 
> interpret the documents marked up that way. So I don't understand how the 
> technical side could be split away.

Strictly speaking, does it matter for the DOM or parser or whatever, if a 
tag is named and used like: <abbr title="description">someword</abbr> or 
like this:
<reference class="abbreviation" ttle="some 
description">someword</reference>.
I don't see how that would make things technically different?
The same applies for the difference in (for example) <code>blabla</code> or 
<p class=code>blabla</p>.

Obviously there are constructs thinkable where the two would indeed at least 
rub shoulders like for example in nesting headers, but I am sure something 
like that is not a major issue and would only mean the two specs need to 
come to agreement with somethings like that.
Another example (just a thought, don't take it seriously) What if we 
eliminate headers alltogether and specify that the title attribute of a 
section is the header. Now, in that case I agree one should colaborate with 
the technical department. But in the grand scheme of things, those are minor 
points surely?

Bert