W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:43:42 +0100
Message-ID: <47AE9D1E.1000408@malform.no>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Philip TAYLOR 08-02-09 09.43:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> In the spec as it stands today, <b> and <i> are not presentational 

> I for one will be seeking to ensure that this is corrected in
> a future draft, and that the <b> and <i> elements do not
> appear in the specification when it is finally released.


Because a semantic defintion of <i>/<b> cause too much and too 
"fine grained" semantics? I.e. do you want a simplification of 
HTML? Or is the thought, that dropping <i>/<b> would not lead to 
as much misuse of <span> as <i>/<b> is misused? Or do you think it 
would not harm anyone if <em>/<strong> became misused/overused? 
(Which will happen if <b>/<i> become dropped.)

But, since <b>,<i> and <span> means the same (namely "nothing" 
...) then why only oppose <b> and <i>?

Or, since they are synonyms, why not let them be used as synonyms 
- as variants of <span>? (As HTML 5 sort of suggests.)
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2008 06:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:52 UTC