Web Technologies

From: dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:00:19 -0500 Message-ID: <43783603.8010900@dolphinling.net> To: Ai / Hiro <i@orz.cc> CC: www-html@w3.org

Ai / Hiro wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:12:32 +0900, Rimantas Liubertas <ic@rimantas.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> а?б?аДаАаБб?аЛаО wrote:
>> > On 11/13/05, Rimantas Liubertas <ic@rimantas.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>You can look at <html> as a shortcut for "html document".
>> >
>> > Hm? "HTML documents" don't exist. Web-page in HTML is a "hypertext document".
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Indeed? I always thought that document marked up using HTML can be
>> called "HTML document" for short.
>>
>> How about this:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22html%20document%22%20site%3Aw3.org&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8  
>>
>>
>> And by the way, how is XML document, which also does not exist, should
>> be called?
>>
> 
> XHTML and XML are on the different layers. I say, "This document is an 
> XML document" or "This document is an XML document, particularly using 
> the XHTML vocabulary". The objective and purpose of the vocabulary is to 
> describe documents. This is constant even if the name of the vocabulary 
> was not HTML.
> 
> We markup a title with <title/> just because it is a "title". I think we 
> should markup a document with <document/> just because it is a 
> "document" in terms of the meanings of the content.

It's not just a document, though. It could be part document, part 
application, or in a few cases entirely application.

Also, in a well-defined language, semantics are given by the definition, 
not the word used, so the semantics will be the same either way. Since 
<html> doesn't cause any confusion (like <cite> does), and since it's 
pretty much hard-coded into authors' minds, I don't see any advantage to 
changing it.

-- 
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/ >

Web Technologies

Re: [Structure Module] Renaming the <html> element to more semantic name