> Yes, we've all seen that overdone markup from hell -- it's come up again
> and again lately, actually. However, in your impulsiveness I think you
failed
> to respond to my message. In fact, did you even read it?

Of course I read it. My post was no reply to your message alone, it was my
thought to the entire discussion.

> Please note that I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just looking for a
> little peaceful discussion. And I'm sorry if -this- was a little
> "impulsive."

I'm looking for a 'peaceful' discussion, too. I only wanted to clarify the
importance of this topic and to express not to accept everything only if it
sounds 'useful'. There are a lot 'useful' things (or elements), but is there a
real need, can't XHTML live without them?


All the best,
 Jens.



> Hi Jens,
> 
> Yes, we've all seen that overdone markup from hell -- it's come up again
> and
> again lately, actually. However, in your impulsiveness I think you failed
> to
> respond to my message. In fact, did you even read it?
> 
> P.S.
> Please note that I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just looking for a
> little peaceful discussion. And I'm sorry if -this- was a little
> "impulsive."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel Brockman
> daniel@brockman.nu
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
> To: <www-html@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 7:44 PM
> Subject: Re: WD-xhtml2-20030506: <qst>ions and <ans>wers
> 
> 
> >
> > Again, I explicitly disagree. The last months I always thought XHTML 2
> will
> > maybe be a reasonable improvement related to its ancestors, but
> observing
> > failing XHTML Minimal approaches and apparently accepted suggestions
> like
> this
> > are sign of something else.
> >
> > What I think definitely to be prevented is an exaggerated markup and
> only
> > nice-to-have elements -- and that ain't only <qa /> including <qst />
> and
> <ans
> > />, but even any <firstname />, <lastname /> elements or absurdities
> like
> > <sentence />, <word />, <noun />, <verb />, <l> (letter) etc.pp.
> >
> > Otherwise (hell, I'm somewhat disgruntled) add them all...! Add them,
> and
> > recommend each author and developer to almost use them all...! I always
> dreamed
> > of formatting my documents like this:
> >
> >
> > <snip />
> >
> > <p>
> >  <qa>
> >   <qst>
> >    <sentence>
> >    <word><verb person="3rd"><l>I</l><l>s</l></verb></word>
> >    <space />
> >    <word><whatever><l>t</l><l>h</l><l>i</l><l>s</l></whatever></word>
> >    <space />
> >    <word><noun><l>n</l><l>u</l><l>t</l><l>s</l></noun></word>
> >    <punctuation type="questionmark" />
> >    </sentence>
> >   </qst>
> >   <ans>
> >    <sentence type="short">
> >    <word><whatever><l>y</l><l>e</l><l>s</l></whatever></word>
> >    <punctuation type="explanationmark" frequency="3" />
> >    </sentence>
> >   </ans>
> >  </qa>
> > </p>
> >
> > <snip />
> >
> >
> > And, hahaha, then any search engine will list this as an 'very important
> > question' including its beautiful useless answer, because it's maybe
> presented
> > on a high-ranked W3 site...? No, please stop that nonsense and rather
> > concentrate on a useful markup restructuring... By the way, I commented
> this <qa />
> > discussion before, so don't simply ignore it by wishing such elements --
> 
> there
> > is definitely (even if resulting from my opinion) no need for this
> element
> > (group).
> >
> >
> >
> >  Jens Meiert.
> >
> >
> > PS.
> > I'm sorry having been that 'impulsive', but it seemed necessary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I don't think the <qa> element is a bad idea per se, but I'm wondering
> if
> > > a
> > > more generic associative/grouping element would be more useful.
> > > Essentially
> > > it would be like a definition list, only it associates flow content
> with
> > > flow content, instead of inline content with flow content. I'm
> thinking
> > > you
> > > could use it for all sorts of things besides the question/answer list;
> > > however, I can't immediately see many such potential usage cases.
> Where
> do
> > > we have relations between flow? How about annotated text?
> > >
> > > One issue, of course, is what the implied semantics of such an element
> > > should be. Would it be commutative, or would the items in it have
> > > different
> > > roles like in definition lists? That is, should the first item be the
> > > "header" and the rest the "content," or should they be of equal
> > > "importance"? Sorry about the lack of propery terminilogy here.
> > >
> > > I haven't given this much consideration; it was just something that
> > > occured
> > > to me as I read the discussion about <qa> and I thought you people
> might
> > > want to investigate it further. One thing I do know is that I do not
> want
> > > any element whose semantics are not clearly and thorougly defined, so
> keep
> > > this out of there unless you can think of clear uses for it.
> (Obviously,
> I
> > > don't need to tell you guys; I'm just covering my own back.)
> > >
> > > Anyway, thank you for your time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Daniel Brockman
> > > daniel@brockman.nu
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Jens Meiert
> >
> > Steubenstr. 28
> > D-26123 Oldenburg
> >
> > Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
> > Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
> > Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91
> >
> > Mail <jens@meiert.com>
> > Internet <http://meiert.com >
> >
> >
> 


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91

Mail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com >