2 ms·
You mean HTML, not HTTP, no? Otherwise I'd be curious to hear how or why including web page layout semantics in HTTP would be useful.
by skewart 10y ago
You mean HTML, not HTTP, no?
Otherwise I'd be curious to hear how or why including web page layout semantics in HTTP would be useful.
- sugarfactory 10y agoI meant HTTP but I have to admit it was not clear. What I had in my mind when I wrote that was there needs to be something that forces people to provide semantics of web pages. By which I mean HTTP is too liberal, allowing any kind of document including documents without semantic annotations to be transferred. Therefore I thought people would provide page semantics if HTTP required documents be annotated with semantics just like HTTP requires Content-Type be given.
- skewart 10y agoAh, I see, that makes sense. The protocol level does seem like a good way to enforce it. Though I do have to wonder if, had that enforcement been put in place, people would have moved away from HTTP and toward a different, looser protocol on top of TCP. Or maybe that wouldn't have been practical. It's interesting to think how early, seemingly low level decisions about protocol design can have a profound effect on how things develop down the road.