W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: sub/sup (was Re: samp, kbd, var)

From: magick <jasper.magick@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:19:51 -0400
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <44EB66E7.5090508@gmail.com>

> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk 
> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk?Subject=Re%3A%20sub%2Fsup%20%28was%20Re%3A%20samp%2C%20kbd%2C%20var%29&In-Reply-To=%253C44EB3ABA.6050305%40splintered.co.uk%253E&References=%253C44EB3ABA.6050305%40splintered.co.uk%253E>> 
> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:11:22 +0100
> Along the same lines, what about sub and sup? To me, they seem 
> dangerously close to presentational markup, unless someone can enlighten 
> me as to what the semantic meaning of these two elements is...

Why stop there, why not add these:

<strong> = Makes things bold
<em> = Makes things italic
<ins> = Underlines stuff
<del> = Adds strikethrough

When will it end?  Who is to say "sup and sub are presentational but the 
ones this really awesome guy listed above are not".

Bottomline, there are valuable uses for <sup> and <sub> and I think they 
should stay as-is.  You need to look at the big picture, they ARE needed 
in their own way ;)
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 20:20:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:14 UTC