- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:20:28 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
magick wrote: > You don't pick up on _scarcasm_ too well do you? > > I was being SARCASTIC, meaning "sup and sub are NOT presentational" Apart from your outstanding display of humour, I seem to have missed the part where you explain *why* you think sub and sup are not purely presentational... "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" Ah well, yes, there are valuable uses, but only because there are no appropriate elements in XHTML to express the variety of semantic meanings traditionally denoted in visual print notation as a sub/superscript. That doesn't explain away the fact though that sub and sup don't actually denote meaning, only visual presentation. Through context and prior knowledge of those print conventions a human reader has to then infer meaning - just as used to be (heck, still is in the majority of sites) the case with bold and italic. If HTML didn't have strong and em, you could apply the same reasoning as above to b and i "they are needed in their own way". But because far more suitable elements exist, these presentational elements have been dropped...and that's exactly my point here. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 22:20:30 UTC