- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:21:08 -0700
- To: mjs@apple.com
- Cc: raman@google.com, foliot@wats.ca, hsivonen@iki.fi, redux@splintered.co.uk, bzbarsky@MIT.EDU, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
I believe:
A) <b> and <i> are perfect fine to retain
--not so much because of legacy support, because in
practice <em> is no more semantic than <i>.
B) I believe presentational markup is evil.
Maciej Stachowiak writes:
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 11:00 AM, T.V Raman wrote:
>
> >
> > Next, you'll see me eating soup at a TAG meeting and believe I
> > like TagSoup:-)
>
> I'm happy to let you speak for yourself. Just to be clear, do you
> think the <b> and <i> tags should be retained for conforming
> documents or not? I've assumed yes based on your past remarks.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> >
> > To clarify, what I said about the <b>, <i> <em> tag question was:
> >
> > A) At the end of the day, asserting that <em> is more semantic
> > than <i> or that <i> is more presentational than <em> changes
> > nothing.
> >
> > B) Worse, if you only have <em> and didn't have an <i>, then
> > people will just use <em> as a synonym for <i>, and the overall
> > markup that results actually loses, not gains semantics.
> >
> > C) If the only accessibility problem left on the Web was that of
> > people using <i> tags instead of <em> tags, I'd declare
> > victory and go home;-)!
>
>
>
--
Best Regards,
--raman
Title: Research Scientist
Email: raman@google.com
WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman
GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 19:21:50 UTC