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

Jim Wise (
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:47:54 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: B, I (Re: HTML 4.0 draft available)
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Ian Samson <>
From: Jim Wise <>
Cc: "Heinrich C. Kuhn" <>,

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Ian Samson wrote:

> Here is my 2c worth...
> (Scott Matthewman) wrote:
> > > Similarly, I think B and I should be deprecated. STRONG and EM are
> > > preferable.
> 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>!

HTML is _not_ a vidual markup language, it is an intentional markup
language.  <STRONG> and <EM> (or <ADDRESS> or <CITE> or whatever else
looks _on_your_browser_ like <I> or <B>) carry more information than <B>
and <I>, and are thus useful in a much wider range of environments.

> <I>, <B>, and <U> are used in Bibliographic information. Anyone publishing
> academic research papers and publications on the Internet will know how
> picky academics are about "correct" format.

A more correct approximation of bibliographic typography can be made
using CSS, without hurting the usefulness of your document in other

> I disagree for the same reasons expressed above; except to add it would be 
> nice to be able to define two or more "styles" for the <DL>,<DT>, and <DD> 
> tags ... at present, if a document has need for numerous <DL> styles, the 
> document must be separated into individual .HTMLs!

Nonsense.  Go reread the sections on the use of CLASS and ID with CSS.

				Jim Wise