W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Request to Revert revision 1.4525

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:34:35 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikg_scNYC==3LmhFkHDE2vqHS_M80vTqbr0vzqa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Jonas,

"Isn't it more semantically correct to use the <em> element? If not, is
the <em> element failing to fulfill its intended purpose and should be
removed?"

It depends on how the warning is structured, use of the <em> and <strong>
are not really useful for people who use AT as they are not currently
supported [1].
We could say well that is the AT's fault, which is true, but if we want to
provide meaningful semantics we should take support into account, which is
why is suggested a heading.


regards
stevef

[1] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=41
On 28 October 2010 09:16, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Maciej,
> >
> > I think that warning is fine, except that it is visually emphasised, but
> not
> > in the mark-up. suggest the most robust way to empahsise this information
> is
> > to provide a heading for it.
>
> Isn't it more semantically correct to use the <em> element? If not, is
> the <em> element failing to fulfill its intended purpose and should be
> removed?
>
> / Jonas
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 08:35:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:16 GMT