Last week or the week before, Mark created a listing of posts by citation using the cite tag. Suddenly many people realized that there were a lot of neat things left to explore in the (X)HTML standards and many interesting discussions were started. Normally, in these discussions, I play the role of one of the unlearned heathens, keeping my mouth closed, my ears open, and my notepad handy as I try to learn from people who understand all of these things a lot better than me. However, after reading this at monokromatik, I had to put my two cents in.
I've always had some trouble understanding the differences between separating content from style using CSS and doing it through databasing. Some well-written scripts can pull content from a database, format it, add images and navigation, and either send it straight to the client or build static pages for client use. By using includes and scripting, your content remains separate from your design and you can then re-purpose that content easily.
The more I read about the semantic web, though, the more I figure out that it's not how you seperate your content from your design, it's the meta data you add in the process. The blockquote tag is a good example of this. When repurposing content without using it, determining which pieces are quotes and which aren't becomes more difficult.
Brian claims that by adding html to your content, you're "poisoning" it. If I understand correctly, it's his opinion that instead of using the blockquote tag, we should instead have a database table called quotes with a field for the article the quote is used in, and with another field for the quote. Repeat this for all the different types of content a post could conntain. Subheaders? Make a table. Lists? Make a table. Anywhere you'd use html, Brian implies you should break this content out and categorize it on the CMS side of things.
Now maybe that's wrong. Maybe instead, he's implying we should write our own markup and use it on our posts, allowing us to then use our CMS system to translate that into html or whatever we need. Doesn't XML solve that problem? That's what publishing companies are using it for. Create your own DTD specifying your tag sets and go to town.
In either case, it seems to me that xHtml does the job more simply without the overhead, and in such a way that later it's easy to change. Isn't that what things like regular expressions are for? The qualification, here, is that you need to do a good job with your markup. Mark wouldn't have been able to pull all of his posts if he hadn't been marking them up consistently.
Brian says "If it sounds a hell of a lot nicer than having to parse each and every article/post looking for CITE elements, then that's because it *is*." I don't understand how a quick regex expression looking for cite tags is any different from a sql query for quote attributes in a database. However, if you degree with this, feel free to argue.
Recent Comments