W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Comments on XHTML 2.0 Working Draft

From: Jonas Jørgensen <jonasj@jonasj.dk>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 13:15:26 +0200
Message-ID: <3D51014E.20608@jonasj.dk>
To: www-html@w3.org

Jonny Axelsson wrote:
>>If backwards compatibility should not be used as an excuse to keep <br>, 
>>what *is* the excuse?
> 
> This was an argument for deprecation as opposed to removing features 
> outright. It is the idea of "fair warning". Noone has said that <br> is 
> about to be removed, now we do. Deprecation would make the transition 
> easier.

If it is removed from the next Working Draft (after which it will likely
take up to year before XHTML 2.0 is a recommendation), wouldn't that be
a fair warning?

>>Why should strong be deprecated?
> 
> Because it is really <b> by another name. <strong> is different from <em> 
> (emphasis) in that there is a real use for emphasis, while "strong 
> emphasis" is an artifact from the earliest days of HTML, there is no such 
> thing outside the world of HTML. 
> 
> The oldest mistakes are the ones hardest to fix. Remember this was long 
> before CSS, and while the debate on semantic vs typographical markup was 
> hot. "If <em> did away <i>, we need something to do away <b>". This was a 
> mistake for two reasons. Firstly, it has harmed, not helped the transition 
> to generally useful ("semantic") markup by cementing the relationship i=em 
> and b=strong. As a result, you get WYSIWYG editors with bold and italic 
> buttons creating <em>s and <strong>s in the code, and automatic tools that 
> converts all <i>s and <b>s into <em>s and <strong>s, and imagining that this 
> makes for higher quality markup. As my Exhibit A, I would like to show you 
> the Web.  

Good points. I now agree that <strong> is bad. Rather than deprecating
it, though, I feel it should simply be removed.

/Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 07:14:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT