- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:26:01 +1000
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> It would be really nice if the advocates of semantic markup based >> their advocacy on realistic use cases instead of an axiomatic belief >> that more semantics are good and all presentational features are bad. > > It boils down to this: If you want to Bold some text, or italicize it, or > underline it, you are doing so *for a reason*... I don't care really what > the reason is, you are doing so in a visual way to indicate some connotation > or other cue/clue to the end "reader", or consumer. Could you cite some *specific* use cases for which authors would typically use <b> and/or <i> due to typographical conventions, that would actually benefit in some way from the addition of a specific semantic element? In other words, answer these questions: * What's the semantics you're trying to represent? * Whats the use case for the semantics? (Why would authors use it?) * What problems would a new feature solve? * Why are <b> and/or <i> unsuitable for the use case/problem? * What benefit is there for users? * What benefit is there for authors? * What benefit is there for implementers? -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:26:18 UTC