4 ms·

The semantic web somehow took a hit when w3c decided to work on html5 at the expense of xhtml2. By the way, the semantic web is a lie (really, I don't think the

by norswap 16y ago

The semantic web somehow took a hit when w3c decided to work on html5 at the expense of xhtml2. By the way, the semantic web is a lie (really, I don't think there's a good way to separate content and presentation, as the presentation is somehow part of the content). What people on a forum are trying to do, is not to make their text look "strong", whatever that means to the person who made the forum stylesheet, but to make their text bold, whatever that means to them.

Raphael 16y ago
XML and XSLT can separate it, although I don't know anyone who likes writing XSLT. JSON for content and JavaScript to create HTML DOM would be my choice.
- norswap 16y ago
  I did xml and xslt once, and tought it was very cool, and certainly under-appreciated. And gosh, it even works under IE6.
joshu 16y ago
the semantic web has nothing tod with semantic markup or html5 or xhtml2.
derefr 16y ago
> What people on a forum are trying to do, is not to make their text look "strong", whatever that means to the person who made the forum stylesheet, but to make their text bold, whatever that means to them. Well, no, not really; that's like saying that I'm trying to create a grilled-cheese sandwich when I go shopping. Unless I am a professional chef (and thus looking to experiment with the form rather than the content), what I really want is the experience of eating a grilled-cheese sandwich: the taste, texture, aroma, visual of grill-marks on bread, etc. What people on a forum want is the experience of seeing a bolded or italic word: that they mentally emphasize, or add importance to, the term so marked-up. The bolding is just a mechanism by which to achieve that experience, a communication tool similar to speed lines in a comic book. If a particular comic book does something other than speed lines to indicate movement—or if a particular website does something else to indicate emphasis—then that is what will be sought out, as that is the word used in the "vocabulary" of the site's design to describe emphasis. Strength or emphasis are the real goals; people just aren't used to stating their real goals, rather than "what they're trying to do." (The bane of IRC help channels everywhere.)
- norswap 16y ago
  Bold or italic are two way to emphasize a word. (The destinction between "strong" and "emphasis" seems quite arbitrary to me.) Yet, go around and change the bold words in some person's text by italic words, and he will probably not be happy, yet the emphasis is still there. Edit : hoho, got the same point as Daniel Newby above whitout even looking. If that's not some kind of proof..
  - derefr 16y ago
    However, if you male the strong text red, and the emphasized text green, instead of typographically styling them at all, your audience will begin to understand fairly shortly if your work is text-heavy. In publishing, you underline words in your manuscript that you want to come out emphasized: nowadays, they do it with italics, but before, they did indeed just underline your text in the published copy.

by norswap 16y ago

Raphael 16y ago

XML and XSLT can separate it, although I don't know anyone who likes writing XSLT. JSON for content and JavaScript to create HTML DOM would be my choice.

norswap 16y ago
I did xml and xslt once, and tought it was very cool, and certainly under-appreciated. And gosh, it even works under IE6.

joshu 16y ago

the semantic web has nothing tod with semantic markup or html5 or xhtml2.

derefr 16y ago

> What people on a forum are trying to do, is not to make their text look "strong", whatever that means to the person who made the forum stylesheet, but to make their text bold, whatever that means to them. Well, no, not really; that's like saying that I'm trying to create a grilled-cheese sandwich when I go shopping. Unless I am a professional chef (and thus looking to experiment with the form rather than the content), what I really want is the experience of eating a grilled-cheese sandwich: the taste, texture, aroma, visual of grill-marks on bread, etc. What people on a forum want is the experience of seeing a bolded or italic word: that they mentally emphasize, or add importance to, the term so marked-up. The bolding is just a mechanism by which to achieve that experience, a communication tool similar to speed lines in a comic book. If a particular comic book does something other than speed lines to indicate movement—or if a particular website does something else to indicate emphasis—then that is what will be sought out, as that is the word used in the "vocabulary" of the site's design to describe emphasis. Strength or emphasis are the real goals; people just aren't used to stating their real goals, rather than "what they're trying to do." (The bane of IRC help channels everywhere.)

norswap 16y ago
Bold or italic are two way to emphasize a word. (The destinction between "strong" and "emphasis" seems quite arbitrary to me.) Yet, go around and change the bold words in some person's text by italic words, and he will probably not be happy, yet the emphasis is still there. Edit : hoho, got the same point as Daniel Newby above whitout even looking. If that's not some kind of proof..
- derefr 16y ago
  However, if you male the strong text red, and the emphasized text green, instead of typographically styling them at all, your audience will begin to understand fairly shortly if your work is text-heavy. In publishing, you underline words in your manuscript that you want to come out emphasized: nowadays, they do it with italics, but before, they did indeed just underline your text in the published copy.