<rant>
Plain ol’ semantic HTML has officially been branded POSH. Sigh.
I want to let my initial emotional reaction to POSH get the better of me so that I could write a rant about it, but I won’t.
I want to express my disdain for the usual suspect rock stars who seem to be spinning their wheels in a race against ego to discover “the next big thing” and splitting hairs and calling it gold in the process, but I won’t.
I want to say that the choice of acronym, POSH, conjures up thoughts of Spice Girls, fur coats and high fashion instead of the cutting edge of web design, but I won’t.
I want to say that the statement [t]he term semantic-html is a mouthful…
is patronizing, to say nothing of the sweeping judgment it makes of its target audience’s intellectual capacity, but I won’t.
I want to say that creating POSH and supporting it is a cop out and a slap to the face of all those who have been working their butts off to get the concept of semantic HTML known while being consistent with–or at least similar to–the mass media’s dumbing down of the masses rather than making an effort to educate them, but I won’t.
I want to say that the use of POSH will actually do the opposite of what is intended (as uttering the word in a meeting would more likely cause confusion with the real word “posh” than encourage questions to be asked by the uninitiated, whereas, using the term “semantic HTML” would likely prompt the very same questions POSH was supposed to), but I won’t.
I want to say that this is a really important issue warranting an emotional tirade, but it isn’t and I won’t.
I want to write a blog post on what I think of POSH, but I won’t.
This post is liable to keep me from ever ranking as one of the usual suspect rock stars in question as I one day would like to. Then again, if it does, I suppose I wouldn’t want to be a part of a group of people who’d shun me for expressing my opinion, would I?
</rant>★
POSH is just another way to express HTML at its rawness. I dont think we need acronym to explain what HTML is, afterall HTML is not CSS nor is it XML its just plain old HTML.
This will just confuse newbies.
I don’t think “Posh” is a bad acronym at all – it does make sense. The fact that it is related to a British pop band can’t be that bad. Have you seen the Spice Girls? They’re definitely easy on the eyes.
Again, it makes sense.
Designer: I think this site needs to be POSH.
Boss: It looks pretty nice already.
Designer: No, I mean POSH, as in “plain-old semantic HTML.”
Boss: Really? That sounds boring. I don’t want our site to be plain or old.
Designer: But it’s a best-practices thing. Really–
Boss: Don’t bother. I don’t want our site to be behind the times.
HTML is an acronym – succinct and to the point. POSH is an acronym to express an acronym, misleading, clumsy and retarded. Which is the more semantic in nature do you think?
…and once a boss/client asks what POSH stands for, i’m sure the words “plain” and “old” won’t inspire them with cutting edge/creative confidence either…
Here, Here! You just made my Saturday.
In an effort to move forward we have lost site of our craft.
“I want to say that creating POSH and supporting it is a cop out and a slap to the face of all those who have been working their butts off to get the concept of semantic HTML known while being consistent with–or at least similar to–the mass media’s dumbing down of the masses rather than making an effort to educate them”…
HTML is not plain or old. Just overlooked.
I agree, it’s utterly idiotic. As you say, it just changes the conversation from:
“We should use semantic HTML.”
“What’s that and why should we use it?”
to:
“We should use POSH.”
“What? Posh? Eh?”
“Yeah, you know – POSH. Plain Old Semantic HTML.”
“Oh. What’s that and why should we use it?”
Wow, great advance guys, inventing yet another acronym (which sounds identical to an actual word you might conceivably use to describe a piece of design) is really worth all the confusion right?
*rolls eyes*
I’m sorta with you on the rock star thing as well. Bit silly how a dozen odd folks have got that little cabal going on, you meet equally capable web people all over the place, all the time, pulling off sites just as (or more) functional and attractive without a speaking tour or needlessly invented new buzzword in sight.
But I suppose folks with a quiet permanent salaried gig don’t need all the self promotional blogging that you do when you’re freelance and selling books and stuff.
ASH – appropriate semantic html
Spur of the moment alternative acronym with no more merit; and probably not suitable either – no one wants to crash, burn and end up as ash, do they ?
I presume that the inspiration for POSH is POTS (plain old telephone system). POTS is a disambiguation term (meaning PSTN as opposed to GSM, VOIP, etc).
POSH, I suppose, could be used to distinguish sites that use semantic as opposed to rubbish old presentational HTML (hereon abbreviated to ROPH, which can “easily be verbed”). You could use it to shame your buddies into ‘POSHifying’ their sites: “Man your site is still coded in ROPH? That’s so lame! POSH is where it’s at bro! You need to deROPHulate and get POSHified!”
In my experience, people either ‘get’ semantic HTML pretty quickly, or they don’t at all (or they don’t care). If you get it, and you believe in it, then you’ll do your best to code ‘properly’. If you don’t, and/or you don’t care, then a cute acronym and a pseudo-aspirational grassroots campaign are not going to change your mind.
PSTN – Public Subscriber Telephone Network ?
VoIP, surely ?