- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:32:08 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Patrick H. Lauke: > So should there be a need for a document containing <small>, for > instance, to pass conformance checks? The least thing the specification should do is to list previously valid element and attribute names and call them "reserved". Checkers should ignore them by default. > Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't the reasoning that saw > the removal of TT, BIG and co be applied in the same way to the > contentious B, I etc? Although I am still a bit sceptical about it on purity grounds, I currently believe that redefining semantics of long-introduced element types is a viable path for a future HTML standard (or recommendation or whatever). That is mostly, though, because I have given up on the idea of the (commercial) Web being build upon a fierce semantic language. Anyhow, I just remembered I once considered to make a proposal to keep |big| for logographic characters inside alphabetic script, because they are often unreadable in 16px / 12pt. Incidentally its name would remind some of the Taiwanese character set / encoding "Big 5". (I do not know where that came from.)
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:32:19 UTC