Re: Re:

Philippe-Andre Prindeville (philipp@res.enst.fr)
Mon, 12 Dec 94 14:46:57 +0100


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 14:46:57 +0100
From: Philippe-Andre Prindeville <philipp@res.enst.fr>
Message-Id: <9412121446.ZM29615@dameron.res.enst.fr>
In-Reply-To: michaelj@relay.relay.com (Michael Johnson)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Re:

On Dec 12, 13:51, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Subject: Re:

> I also think it would be a bad idea to do anything similar to the emphasis
> tags. If anything, <B> and <I> and <TT> should be deprecated in favor of the
> logical emphasis (phrase) tags such as <EM>, <STRONG> and <SAMP>. One should
> not represent semantically different document elements with a common tag!

I agree with this but I would go even further.  Emphasis, Strong, Sample,
etc. aren't specific enough.  We don't know *why* the author chose to
emphasis something: perhaps because it is the first usage of a term or
phrase?  In this case, we need a tag for that, not something fuzzy like
<EM>...  Still, it's a step up from <B>.

-Philip