If HTML is an example of semantic interoperability, are there parts of HTML that can be re-used for more semantic interoperability?
Some three (3) year old numbers on usage of HTML elements:
| Element | Percentage |
| a | 21.00 |
| td | 15.63 |
| br | 9.08 |
| div | 8.23 |
| tr | 8.07 |
| img | 7.12 |
| option | 4.90 |
| li | 4.48 |
| span | 3.98 |
| table | 3.15 |
| font | 2.80 |
| b | 2.32 |
| p | 1.98 |
| input | 1.79 |
| script | 1.77 |
| strong | 0.97 |
| meta | 0.95 |
| link | 0.66 |
| ul | 0.65 |
| hr | 0.37 |
| http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/11406/recent-statistics-on-html-usage-in-the-wild |
Assuming they still hold true, the <a> element is by far the most popular.
Implications for a semantic interoperability solution that leverages on the <a> element?
Leave the syntax the hell alone!
As we saw in parts 1 and 2 of this series, the <a> element has:
- simplicity
- immediate feedback
If you don’t believe me, teach someone who doesn’t know HTML at all how to create an <a> element and verify its presence in browser. (I’ll wait.)
Back so soon? 😉
To summarize: The <a> element is simple, has immediate feedback and is in widespread use.
All of which makes it a likely candidate to leverage for semantic interoperability. But how?
And what of all the other identifiers in the world? What happens to them?