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

Re: XHTML 2.0 - dfn : Content model and usability (PR#7832)

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:37:19 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200603280637.k2S6bJV00886@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

> 
> According to my studies it's used in around 0.1% of the Web's pages. 
> One in every thousand pages isn't bad, given how few pages could be 
> expected to be defining terms; In particular, it's used more than 
> <ins>, <del>, <var>, <samp>, <bdo>, etc.

Such low usage is not surprising once you realise that most of the
world thinks that HTML is a presentational language.  Most people will,
at most, use a subset of the language which accesses all the presentational
capabilities.  Because the political incorrectness of <I> and <B> have
been stressed, some people will have shifted to <EM> and <STRONG>, even
though they are not the simplest way of achieving italics and bold, but
they still mean italics and bold to them, not emphasized and strongly
emphasized.  Political correctness will result in <I> and <B> being
avoided even when they are appropriate!

As a presentational synonym for <I>, <DFN> offers no advantage to them
over <I>.

As most HTML is, to a greater or lesser extent, advertising copy, this
will be further restricted to the presentational effects commonly required
in such copy.
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 07:24:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:05 GMT