Re: B, I (Re: HTML 4.0 draft available)

Steve Cheng (steve@elmert.ipoline.com)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:46:34 -0400 (EDT)


Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:46:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steve Cheng <steve@elmert.ipoline.com>
To: Ian Samson <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>
cc: "Heinrich C. Kuhn" <kuhn@mpg-gv.mpg.de>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: B, I (Re: HTML 4.0 draft available)
In-Reply-To: <9D7E556B9B@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970710154312.305A-100000@elmert>

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Ian Samson wrote:
> IMHO, <STRONG> and <EM> are NOT preferable to <B> and <I> since <B> and <I> 
> are easier to type and don't waste space. Some HTML editors automate the 
> process for <B> and <I> but not for <STRONG> or <EM>!

Then why not have:
<A>
<B>
<C>
<D>
....

easier to type. If you use ASCII text is even more easier because you only
need to use * or some other character.

Of course, <A>, <B>, <C>, <D>, is meaningless, but so is <B> and <I>
because they don't convey structural information. Not that I necessarily
think they should be deprecated. 

--
Steve Cheng
elmert@ipoline.com
http://www.ipoline.com/~elmert/