Can anyone explain how HTML/CSS/etc. can be "semantic" at the syntax layer when it is largely a means of specifying a UI?
The era when HTML was a markup for text documents is gone -- what sense is there in supposing it can be 'semantic' ?
The era when HTML was a markup for text documents is gone -- what sense is there in supposing it can be 'semantic' ?
The the better UI toolkits slowly start to accumulate all these, grow wieldy, sluggish and get replaced by a "fresh" and "snappy" alternative and the circle continues.
I don’t expect it’s accessible to screen readers, but, well, it’s a 3D game.
Semantic here doesnt mean buttons arent buttons, etc. it means the components are named for their role as components -- rather than their role in structuring text markup.
> Can anyone explain how HTML/CSS/etc. can be "semantic" at the syntax layer when it is largely a means of specifying a UI?
"Semantic" HTML means that you have to use a purpose-made element when it's available. A link should preferably be done with <a>, not <div> or <span>. (<button> is more debatable.) HTML doesn't provide a calendar so you should roll your own with `<div class="my-calendar">`, or more recently, custom elements like <my-calendar>. You would have many internal parts within that element, unless hidden under a shadow tree, but at least that particular element can be said "semantic".
"Semantic" CSS means that you have to pick a sensible name. This is different from HTML because CSS itself has no semantics attached---you attach a tree and name subtrees with class or id. So the sensible name is not means to do anything other than managing complexity, and became out of fashion once other approaches like Tailwind were found and became feasible. In any case you would name something semantically, which may or may not translate to actual CSS class names.
As an example, a heading might contain the content: “A brief summary”. Without a semantic role, this does not convey the hierarchical position of that element within the document. Using the correct tag (in this case, `h{1|2…}` does provide this extra information and helps provide structure to the document.
The web isnt hypertext any more, it's hypogui. If we defined a "WebGUI Markup Language" it could be a requirement that all UI elements have semantic attributes, etc.,
eg.,
<Text type="heading" purpose="page title"> My Web Page </Text>
Most of my usage of the web is served better by text with markup than a (front end) application platform and every site having masses of JS makes things worse (I have JS off by default and turn it on when sites refuse to work with JS and fail with reader view).
For instance, the `<button>` element has a default `role` of `button`, to indicate that it is a button, that can be clicked, and will perform an action when that is done. The role can be changed, for instance to `link`, to indicate that it now functions as a link. Similarly, a paragraph tag (`<p>`) can be assigned a role of `button`.
It’s very easy to abuse this, but it also means the underlying markup is a lot clearer, IMO. This may not be true to people who are not used to or don’t know about the semantic side of HTML, but herein lies a lot of the associated knowledge of that syntax, often unfortunately overlooked, sometimes leading to HTML being derided as a “beginner’s language”. There is a huge amount of knowledge around HTML.
And isn’t html is still markup for text documents? All kinds of web apps output just that as their result.
This is semantic. The opposite of semantic would be having all divs and using them for everything.