[Bug 16026] This is general feedback on the overall standard, as far as I understand it. This is feedback from an average web user who knows a decent amount of fundamental HTML (primarily self-taught) who regularly uses it to varying degrees on various forums, blogs

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16026

Jonathon VS <email@jonathonvs.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |email@jonathonvs.com
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #1 from Jonathon VS <email@jonathonvs.com> 2012-05-25 01:54:37 UTC ---
You are quite right: there is a trend towards moving presentation to CSS. This
is not done with the intention of frustrating people who want concise code, nor
to change something that works simply for the effect of changing it.

Restricting HTML to structural elements and reallocating the presentation to
CSS allows for styles to be reused, and allows HTML files to be indexed more
easily for things besides the human eye, such as search engines or assistive
technologies for those with vision disabilities. This move isn't intended to be
a bias, but merely a transition to a more flexible platform that we see much of
the Web is already adopting.

It is true, thousands of websites do use presentational HTML elements. Although
these HTML elements are largely being removed from the HTML5 spec, they are
certainly valid in other specifications, such as HTML 4.01 Transitional, which
are still W3C Recommendations. Because of these elements' prolific presence on
the Web, support for these elements is incredibly unlikely to be removed from
user agents (e.g. Web browsers) in the near future. We are noticing, though,
that many Web-based shortcode generators (e.g. bbCode) and WYSIWYG editors
(e.g. TinyMCE) that are used on blogs and personal webspaces, are starting to
conform to HTML standards. WordPress, for example, which uses TinyMCE,
automatically corrects invalidly nested elements and uses the STRONG element
instead of B when the "bold" button is clicked on the toolbar.

The issues you have mentioned have certainly been considered by the HTML
Working Group. In fact, it seems as though for every Web designer we have
requesting these elements be retained, there are as many Web developers begging
for them to be removed. :) XHTML2 did not include the B, I, or U elements,
whereas HTML5 includes all three. We are hoping to strike a fair balance.

Finally, I appreciate what you say about HTML5 needing to remain simple.
Indeed, ease of use is one of HTML's great strengths. It is the aim of the
Working Group to make HTML5 a dynamic, powerful markup language that is usable
in a variety of situations. This is why all of the elements added to the
specification have been designed to be intuitive and meaningful to the person
writing the code, so that it is evident which element is appropriate for which
purpose. It is also important that the Recommendation document itself be worded
in a way that is easily readable and understandable to a variety of audiences.

Thank you very much for your input.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 01:54:42 UTC