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

Re: [HDP] Other comments from RI

From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:53:32 +0100
Message-ID: <46E54C5C.9060503@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'public-html' <public-html@w3.org>



Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 19:01, Richard Ishida wrote:

>> A better sentence may be "Directional markup is useful because it 
>> applies to many right to left scripts, even though content in some 
>> scripts has no need of it."
> 
> The <i> example was inserted deliberately to avoid the use of the 
> principle against <i>, which would be an easily foreseeable 
> misapplication of the principle if the example was left out.

No, it would be an easily forseeable /application/ of the
principle.

> (I 
> suggested the example, so I know why it was meant for. :-) The 
> directionality example is reasonable, but it fails to pre-empt 
> misapplication against <i>.

Absolutely no comment needed.

> 
>> Certainly we should continue to support <b> and <i> tags, but we 
>> should encourage people to use <em> and <strong> instead.
> 
> Merely renaming things and continuing to use them as before does not 
> really solve anything technical.

Henri, you completely miss the point : RI is proposing that users
create <em> and <strong> elements for /emphasised/ and for
/strongly emphasised/ stretches of text respectively.  To
confuse (or conflate) this with elements denoting the intended
typographic appearance of a particular stretch of text suggest
such a basic lack of familiarity of the precepts of document markup
that I find it difficult to believe that you are even suggesting
that there could be any overlap between the two.

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 13:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC