- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:37:00 +0100
- To: "Dana Lee Ling" <dleeling@comfsm.fm>, public-html-comments@w3.org
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:22:46 +0100, Dana Lee Ling <dleeling@comfsm.fm> wrote: > I have always prided myself on conforming to standards, and try to write > HTML 4.01 strict and now HTML 5 technology preview conforming pages. If > the inline style attribute is removed, then that will be an impossible > goal for me. Pave the cow paths. Eelmine says 61% of web pages use > inline style. That's a pretty hefty cow path to remove from the standard. This is an open issue. I expect style="" to be added back in due course. However, the differences document should reflect the actual differences, not the expected differences :-) > While HTML 5 says inline style is being removed as presentational, what > is <b> and <i> if not presentational? As a science teacher I support the > bringing back of <i> for scientific names, though I presently use <em>. Using <em> for that seems abuse of the <em> element. Although maybe in reality the two are now pretty much the same. Then again, the current draft tries to define them in such a way that both are semantic and have a distinct meaning. > Sometimes presentation cannot be fully separated for human beings. The > alternative is dozens of classes like .floatright {float:right;}, > ..textsmall {text-size:smaller;} I think the question you should ask is that if something has a distinct presentation, doesn't it have a distinct meaning as well? Also, what's the best way to capture that meaning in markup? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 15:37:55 UTC