Re: strength of extra-CSS style imperatives
From: Gavin Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| >These should be depreciated. An idea would be that in Cougar, the EM,
| >STRONG, CODE etc. tags be given 1-letter names while B I S U etc be given
| >longer names to encourage useability and readability of the former.
| Good grief. HTML has enough prsentational markup already without
| *encouraging* it's use, and discouraging the use of structural markup.
| What on earth does <BOLD> mean to a blind user? What does <EMPH> mean?
| This proposal shows a very clear *misunderstanding* of the funamaental
| justification for CSS... or any stylesheet for that matter.
I think *you* misunderstood what you quote, which is exactly what you
recommend. The proposal was to give 1-character names to the
"structural" tags (EM, STRONG, etc.), to encourage their use, and that
longer names be required for the "presentational" tags (B, I, etc.).
The underlying assumption is that a shorter name encourages use.
Personally, I think we should lose *all* the 1-character versions...
As to BOLD versus EM, I suspect most blind people would recognize them
as synonymous, for text description purposes. Except for one or two
obscure technical uses (like the volume number in citations of articles
in serials), bold has no special meaning beyond "emphasized". In this
it differs from italics, where many of the uses are standardized and
would be better replaced by specialized markup or by CLASSes (e.g., book
titles, foreign words).
motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801
phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550
internet mail: email@example.com