Re: Question re Deprecation

Ian Hickson (exxieh@bath.ac.uk)
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:52:51 -0500 (EST)


Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:52:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <000601bd44a4$0b1fca40$ce20268a@hpxu>
From: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, roconnor@uwaterloo.ca, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question re Deprecation

A fellow member exclaimed:
>I don't know the reasoning either, but my impression was that B, I, and TT
>survived due to their presence in HTML 2.0.  (Note that S and STRIKE were
>both deprecated.)  Then again, BIG and SMALL were not deprecated...

Well I reckon the *whole lot* should be deprecated, that is, the TT, I, B,
BIG, SMALL, STRIKE, S, and U elements,
and that <I> should be brought back again as "instance of term use"
(contrast with <DFN>) for times such as:

<P>And this is why the <i>cocorbita nepula</i> has three seeds.</P> <!--
hmm. made that up on the spot :-) -->

The advantage then is that temporally-challenged (old) browsers already
render terms the usual way. There was general consensus on this a few weeks
back when we last discussed these things...

--
Ian Hickson
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GIT/M/S d- s+: a--- C++(+++)>$ U P L+ !E W++ N++ o? K? w++>+++ O- !M V- PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t 5+++>++++ X- R+++ tv b++(+++) DI D++ G e-(*)>+++++ h!()(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------