[You wrote:]
> You've got a good idea there-- having the set of semantic tags
> separate from HTML so that they're effectively invisible. Then HTML browsers
> don't have to be concerned with implementing these tags. Dave commented that
> getting into all the semantic tags becomes a bottomless pit.
Yes. Thanks ... maybe if I implement some of the stuff I talk about,
it will be even more interesting. :-)
> ... [stuff omitted] ...
> ... I believe that HTML needs to specify at least a few tags so that
> browsers can use the semantic information. Semantics aren't just for
> automatic indexers.
Agree (see below).
> We agree that orthogonality is important-- for this reason the ROLE
> attribute shouldn't be coupled with <EM>phasis. I believe orthogonality can
> be achieved even with certain semantic tags added to HTML+.
I agree -- there has to be some semantic tagging within HTML (I
overstated the case :) -- of course there already is some, and
possibly should be more. Defining a proper tag set is a subtle
thing -- for HTML and for lots of other applications!
Some context is needed (I hope I provided some in my somewhat rambling
scenario) so it can be decided which semantic tags are appropriate to
include within HTML and which ones are better left to the domain of a
companion application.
- Steve.