- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:10:31 -0400
- To: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Philip & Le Khanh" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On 5/6/07, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk> wrote: [ Using '<b style="position: absolute ; top: 150px;">' to mean 'header' ] > It doesn't matter. It /is/ a real-world example of why the > B-element /cannot/ be redefined as being equal to STRONG; > the rarity of misuse notwithstanding. Sure it can. That page was already broken; in some GUI browsers it would (and still will) produce a result that many people will see as a synonym for "header", but (from a prescriptivist standpoint) it wasn't (and still isn't) a real header. If the parsing fallbacks were dropped, and b were defined strictly as a fallback for strong -- it would continue to be prescriptively wrong, but it would still produce something that many people would see as a synonym for header, just as they do in printed pages. -jJ
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 16:10:37 UTC