- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:21:56 +0200
- To: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:17:12 +0200, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr> wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:34:54 +0200, aurélien levy >> <aurelien.levy@free.fr> wrote: >>> Because i can want to have my description visually before his term (i >>> know i can achieve that with css but most of people simply choose the >>> simplest way). >> >> That's similar to using <font size=4><b> instead of <h1>. If people >> don't use markup correctly they're lost anyway. Inventing even more >> complex markup that is not backwards compatible is not a way to solve >> that problem I think. > > it's not at all, in your case, the visual rendering is the same but the > semantic is different, in my case the visual rendering is the same and > still have the same semantic (in the case of using di element or a for > attribut mechanism) I wasn't aware that you suddenly changed your original example to include some non backwards compatible construct. My apologies. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 10:22:03 UTC