- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:31:16 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, www-html@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:59:10PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > The problem with the proposal is that it would tie up editorial and > review talent while failing to address the forward-looking issues > that HTML5 is addressing. That would rather depend on whether we all agree that HTML5, as it looks now, /is/ forward-looking or simply fluffy. Personally I am for a cleaned-up HTML 4 *without* any large changes. > For *practical* purposes, <i> will continue to mean italics when > applied to bicameral scripts on the visual media. Exactly how do you propose that a tool which, for instance, retrieve taxonomic designations from documents to create an index, see the difference between the I-element when used for "practical purposes ... mean italics" and when used as the WA1 suggest is SHOULD be used? And if we cannot use the encoded semantics because it can't be differentiated from *presentational* use, then what's the point in *changing the meaning* of <i>? It certainly can't be to maintain backwards compatibility, since authors use the I-element to *make something italic* regardless of *what* that something is. This topic, and many others, must be discussed and, frankly, fixed. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 13:31:25 UTC