- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:24:23 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
2007/7/20, Robert Burns: > > I think the example in the draft is a good example of a use of > "important" that does not really correspond to "emphasis" (strong or > otherwise). > > <p><strong>Warning.</strong> This dungeon is dangerous. > <strong>Avoid the ducks.</strong> Take any gold you find. > <strong><strong>Do not take any of the diamonds</strong>, > they are explosive and <strong>will destroy anything within > ten meters.</strong></strong> You have been warned.</p> > > Imagine changing those elements to <em> and I don't think they work > as emphasis (and not because it needs to be emphasized more > strongly). It is more like an instruction manual that's trying to > draw your attention to certain words or phrases so that you may skim > it quickly and get the gist of it. I don't think that's how <strong>, > as in "strong emphasis" (or <em><em></em></em>) should be used. What do you think about this example from the HTML 4.01 Rec: Please refer to the following reference number in future correspondence: <STRONG>1-234-55</STRONG> — http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#edef-STRONG Given this example, I'm not sure the definition in the current draft is that different from the "original" one from HTML4. > If there's an apparent need for an <important> element then I > support adding one (so long as it doesn't have a name collision > with existing elements in whatever namespace we go with). Yes there is, and people have been using <strong> for that (HTML4 had nothing better). Other uses of <strong> are abuses because someone once said "<b> and <i> are bad, use <strong> and <em> instead" and authors still think first WISYWIG rather than WYMIWYG (What You Mean Is What You Get) -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 06:24:27 UTC