- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:56:42 +0000
- To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Simon Pieters wrote: >> * Widely considered to be presentational, not semantic. > > So are <b> and <i>. Won't get an argument from me there, although removing <i> may then require addition of other more specific markup elements to denote things like names of ships, which traditionally have been visually presented in italics. > * To indicate importance (i.e. same as <strong>). If it's same as <strong> or <em>, then shouldn't <strong> or <em> be used and simply styled to appear visually as underlined text? > * To underline text when e.g. converting a printed copy to HTML and > underlining is a specific typographical convention. Same as above. In printed copy, underlining is used to emphasise a certain word/passage. So, shouldn't it be <strong> or <em>, with appropriate css? > * To indicate hotkeys of menu items, e.g. in a "help" document. If it's to show the hotkeys of actual live items, should it be the UA's responsibility to highlight these, based on @accesskey assignment (as per other discussion)? If it's a "static" help document, could it be considered pure presentation, and handled with spans instead? > * To mark or highlight something (i.e. same as <m>). (IIRC, Henri Sivonen > proposed to use <u> instead of <m>.) Again, if it's the same as <m>, should <m> not be used and styled accordingly? P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 13:56:59 UTC