- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:10:28 +0000
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Charles Hinshaw wrote: > > The arguments that I have > seen still mistake the the visual display of an element with the meaning > of that element - confusing underlinedness (which has no meaning) with > meaningful elements that whose meanings are conveyed visually through > underlines. Indeed. I also don't think examples from print style guides (or print style guides that have simply been ported one to one to the web) are helpful as use cases. In print, the visual presentation is the only way to mark up meaning. Through habit/tradition, readers have learned to infer semantics from particular visual presentations and, most of all, context. This doesn't have to be the case for HTML, where meaning can potentially be marked up far more unequivocally (even if, in the end, the visual presentation via css then reduces it to the familiar bold/italic/underline distinctions). 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 21:10:46 UTC