On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 04:13:47PM -0400, tedd wrote: > At 8:15 PM +0100 5/18/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote: >> On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 14:48 -0400, tedd wrote: >> >> > I think the next big thing will be an argument over meaning. :-) >>> >> I don't mean using id attributes that appear to have meaning, but using >> the proper tags to mark up content. That's things like <abbr> and >> <acronym> tags for abbreviations and acronyms respectively, tables for >> tabular data and lists for list data, quote tags for quotations, etc. > > Yes, I agree -- one of my pet peeves is people using alt tags for > tool-tips when that's best served by the title tag. > >> What you mention does have some merit to it though, as microformats are >> an idea to use the class attribute to classify data in certain ways, >> like <span class="date"> or <span class="author"> etc, although I'm not >> sure how well these work! > > That's kind of what I was talking about -- but I'm much more simple. > > It seems to me that things like header, navigation, content, and > footer would be pretty standardized. However, in some sites the > header called the banner, footer is called copyright, navigation is > called side-bar, and content is called wrapper or something even less > semantic. > > When the simpletons can't agree, then there's not much hope for the > complexetons. :-) That's the same problem XML has. The original idea was that you could, for example, have an invoice, and because it was marked up with the appropriate tags, everyone would be able to understand what it meant. I'm not sure what idiot came up with the original idea, but he was just that. With no standardization, you have all kinds of abbreviated tags that don't mean anything to anyone except the designers. And even if the tags are understandable, they aren't the same for everyone who designs an invoice. For evidence, check out the native XML files used to store KMyMoney transactions. Good luck. XML was the cool thing which was supposed to replace EDI, which was a transaction standard before the internet. The difference was that EDI invoices were standardized (mostly), the files relied on you knowing the standard, had no metadata in them, and were a fraction of the size of XML documents as a result. Oh, and you had to pay ANSI or whoever $90 for the standard on whatever document (purchase order, invoice, bill of lading) you wanted to deal with. A mixed bag, for sure. When they dreamed up XML, I wish they'd also set up a standards body or process for standardizing tags and attributes. You wouldn't *have* to follow the standard, but in the end, most would. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
