On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:18:02 +0900, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
> Le 05-11-24 à 14:17, Asbjørn Ulsberg a écrit :
>> <document xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml ">
>>
>> says that this is a "document" written in the "XHTML vocaublary".
>
> In French and English, for sure, but given the number of users of
> kanjis on earth, we should use
>
> <??? xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml ">
>
> That would be a lot better.
> Just to say that the semantics of an element is not defined by its
> spelling, but by the definition which is attached to it. Sure it's
> more practical when a *part* of the developer community can read it
> and then remember it, "document" sounds better than "d67xgh" but not
> necessary better than "???".
>
The WG has worked on the spec using English words for the vocabulary, and the topic here is which word is more accurate as the element name, "document" or "html" in *English*. This comparison is equivalent to of <???> ("document" in Japanese) with <??????????????????????> ("HyperText Markup Language" in Japanese), but not of <document> with <d67xgh>. As long as an element name is human-readable, any-develop-community-lookupable, and should be more descriptive, the name itself--not only the definition attached to it--should be more semantic even in the one particular natural language.
--
Ai / Hiro (ja-JP;q=9, en-US;q=6)
The Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 04:45:20 GMT
