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 15:00:19 +0200
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070506130019.GK23727@greytower.net>

On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:06:19AM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> My own personal stance would be less extreme than this, merely that  
> new versions of the standard should be informed by how previous  
> versions were actually used, and adapt some extent. Markup languages  

  Indeed. Which is why - again - the I- and B-elements should not
  be given any semantic interpretation /based on how they are actually
  used in the wild/.

  I don't know how I can make this point any more clear.




> >  is an actual header just because the author thought it was
> >  a good idea at the time.
> 
> This probably would be non-trivial to deduce, yes, but I also think  
> this is a pretty rare way to say "header" compared to <div  
> class="header"> or <h1>.

  It doesn't matter. It /is/ a real-world example of why the
  B-element /cannot/ be redefined as being equal to STRONG;
  the rarity of misuse notwithstanding.

  A quick grep through 22,221 HTML documents currently
  in archive show 4,894 uses of the B-element. A sample
  of the pages reveal that some use it instead of
  STRONG, some instead of H*, and some documents use it
  for /both/, on the same page.




> It seems like part of your objection may be based on unfamiliarity  
> with the contents of the spec.

  I frankly don't understand on why you insist on this particular
  form of argumentation - it is vaguely unpleasant.

  Could it be that I am familiar with the specification and
  *disagree with it*?

  The theory that "disagreement is only due to ignorance" doesn't
  hold water.

-- 
 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 13:00:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT