W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:31:52 +0300
Message-Id: <3E69C1D6-EC9F-4978-8D14-E2C301F76F87@iki.fi>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
To: Patrick H.Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>

On Apr 23, 2007, at 17:41, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> Quoting Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>:
>
>> For *practical* purposes, <i> will continue to mean italics when
>> applied to bicameral scripts on the visual media.
>
> And for *practical* reasons, tables are used for layout and <font>  
> is used to change typeface...but that doesn't mean it's right.

In writing that uses the Latin script, italicization is more sticky  
than the typeface. Hence, italics are closer to being part of the  
content.

> The argument puts the cart before the horse: <i> is used *because*  
> there is no "names of ships / animal genus / etc" element with a  
> default presentation of "italics". This does not validate its use  
> for those situations, but rather shows the pressing need for  
> elements that do clearly define those semantics and have that  
> particular presentation built into all browsers' default stylesheets.

You seem to be assuming that semantic markup is good for the sake of  
semantics. I see semantic markup as merely a means to achieve media  
independence. The reality is that normal people don't want to encode  
the reason why they italicized something. They just want to select  
some text, hit ctrl-i or command-i and be done with it.

My opinion about <i> is mostly documented in
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-January/ 
009060.html

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 15:32:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:09 GMT