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

Re: Cleaning House

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:04:10 +0200
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Cc: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070506100410.GC23727@greytower.net>

On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 08:41:23PM -0400, Murray Maloney wrote:

> From the June 1993 Internet Draft for HTML:
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt
> 
> STRONG        Stronger emphasis, typically bold.
> B               Boldface, where available, otherwise alternative mapping 
> allowed.
> EM              Emphasis, typically italic.
> I               Italic font (or slanted if italic unavailable).

  Yes. Even that text prove my point.


> elements. But consider <i class="ship">.

  Meaning nothing. Do you mean a ship name? Or is it an abbreviate
  name for a shipping label? Or perhaps even a status saying whether
  something is about to ship?



> In "HTML as she are spoke," <i> and <em> are synonyms for most intents and 
> purposes.

  No. In HTML *in the wild* the I-element is used for italics, without
  thought or reason.

  If I cannot explain to you, so that you understand, the difference
  between "emphasized term" and "italics text", then that is no longer my
  failure to communicate.


> Why not?
> 
> I have been layering semantics onto the CLASS attribute and REL/REV since 
> 1993.

  With support from which standard?

-- 
 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 10:04:21 UTC

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