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

Re: RE: XHTML2: Elements to include and not to include (i and b)

From: Samuli Lintula <samuli@samulilintula.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:10:10 +0300
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <R2X32B6NMJH2XUR76RQSYU74XWD0NK.3d58b0d2@ltk047>

13.8.2002 6:46:27 "James Craig" <james@cookiecrook.com> kirjoitti:

>From: Samuli Lintula
>>I care very much about disabilities and non-visual medias. Still, nothing
>>in the world changes the fact that in biology (for example) <i>, not
>><span class="*">, by it's visual presentation carries *information* and
>>that there is no eqiuivalent to it in aural or braille media (that I know
>Aural stylesheets do exist, but they aren't well supported. 

I know very well that they exist. My point was: Not inside nor outside the WWW is there a 
convention of how to speak certain biological terms. However, there is a very well 
established convention to write them in italics and the way they look in visual media 
passes on information about the word.

>>The way I see it, is that <i> would be a *context specific* scientific
>>(or non-scientific) special elelement whose presentation by convention
>>is italic. This is equivalent to the usege of <sup> in XHTML2.
>Instead of <i></i>, use <em class="bug-name">S. cerevisiae</em>. The <em/>
>tag denotes emphasis which

I don't want to emphasize a bug or gene name. Just think how that would sound: "The S. 
CEREVISIAE! gene DNAG! blah yada blah..."
EM            { pitch: medium; pitch-range: 60; stress: 60; richness: 50 }

Samuli Lintula             @ http://www.samulilintula.net/
Department of Biochemistry @ University of Turku
1. Varavaltuutettu (vihr.) @ Turku
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 03:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC