- From: Jason A. Lefkowitz <jason@jasonlefkowitz.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 16:57:59 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <463A4CD7.5020609@jasonlefkowitz.net>
> > thank you for your reasoned and rapid response... i apologize for > overlooking your contribution to the thread, but as i think we can > all agree, it takes a lot of time and effort to plow through all > the mail one receives daily from public-html > Oy, you're not kidding. I'm just happy to stay on top of the general direction of the discussion, much less try to read everything... > BLOCKQUOTE is already "half" deprecated, anyway: The way I read that is that the _misuse_ of BLOCKQUOTE (as a way to indent text without learning CSS) is deprecated. As it should be. But the part of the spec that says "/as some authors have used BLOCKQUOTE merely as a mechanism to indent text/ // > why not use the opportunity to deprecate BLOCKQUOTE altogether? Because we're supposed to be evolving the Web-as-it-is. There are a huge number of documents out there using BLOCKQUOTE today, many if not most of which use it correctly (to indicate quoted text) rather than incorrectly (to hack together indented text). I have certainly seen it used "properly" more often than misused in the last few years in the sites I visit; and most modern blog packages and CMSes use BLOCKQUOTE correctly by default. Removing BLOCKQUOTE in favor of a mutated Q or some new element would break those documents and applications. That's not a step I would want to see this WG take unless there were a Really Important Reason to do so, which doesn't seem to be the case, at least to me... > i am interested in your reaction to the other > presentational elements i listed: > > * B (bold) > * BIG > * I (italics) > * SMALL > * SUB (subscript) > * SUP (superscript) > * TT > BIG, SMALL, and TT strike me as obvious candidates for deprecation; my hunch is they're rarely used, and they have strictly presentational value, without any semantic meaning I can see. I'm agnostic on B and I; if they're just going to be replaced by STRONG and EM, we might as well use B and I and save ourselves the trouble. SUB and SUP aren't semantically meaningful, but they are probably more widely used than the first three I listed, so I'd want to tread more carefully with them. Hope this is helpful! -- Jason Lefkowitz -- Jason A. Lefkowitz web: http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net email: jason@jasonlefkowitz.net "A statesman... is a dead politician. Lord knows, we need more statesmen." -- Bloom County
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:00:32 UTC