W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Cleaning House

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:21:08 -0700
Message-ID: <17978.13860.516948.912016@retriever.corp.google.com>
To: mjs@apple.com
Cc: raman@google.com, foliot@wats.ca, hsivonen@iki.fi, redux@splintered.co.uk, bzbarsky@MIT.EDU, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org


I believe:

A)      <b> and <i> are perfect fine to retain
        --not so much because of legacy support, because in
        practice <em> is no more semantic than <i>.

B)      I believe presentational markup is evil.

Maciej Stachowiak writes:
 > 
 > On May 3, 2007, at 11:00 AM, T.V Raman wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > > Next, you'll see me eating soup at a TAG meeting and believe I
 > > like TagSoup:-)
 > 
 > I'm happy to let you speak for yourself. Just to be clear, do you  
 > think the <b> and <i> tags should be retained for conforming  
 > documents or not? I've assumed yes based on your past remarks.
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Maciej
 > 
 > 
 > >
 > > To clarify, what I said about the <b>, <i> <em> tag question was:
 > >
 > > A) At the end of the day, asserting that <em> is more semantic
 > >    than <i> or that <i> is more presentational than <em> changes
 > >    nothing.
 > >
 > > B) Worse, if you only have <em> and didn't have an <i>, then
 > >    people will just use <em> as a synonym for <i>, and the overall
 > >    markup that results actually loses, not gains semantics.
 > >
 > > C) If the only accessibility problem left on the Web was that of
 > >    people using <i> tags instead of <em> tags, I'd declare
 > >    victory and go home;-)!
 > 
 > 
 > 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 19:21:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC