Re: Cleaning House

Quoting Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>:

> Just to reiterate, there are two questions here:
> 1) Should documents containing <b> and <i> be conforming HTML5 documents?
> 2) Should the HTML5 specification normatively specify parsing of
>    <b> and <i> that is compatible with existing content?

I would say:

1) no - instead, define better elements that cover those situations in  
which the elements in question are used as a last presentational  
resort, for lack of a more semantic equivalent; and if they ARE used  
purely for presentational reasons ("i just like how that word looks in  
italic"), suggest generic approaches such as an appropriately styled  

2) yes - but make it clear that it's a special backwards-compatibility  
concession, and that it does not ratify the use of those elements; it  
could then even include the elements that Anne touched on, like  

> Now you could argue that if UAs accept the elements authors will use
> them no matter what and ignore the conformance checkers which claim
> their documents are not conformant.

I won't argue...I'd say this discussed approach is the most realistic,  
as it allows for a "cleaner" spec, while making backwards  
compatibility concessions...but separating the two.

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] |
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 08:27:58 UTC