Re: Cleaning House

John Foliot - wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> 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?
> Exactly.  What is the point of using a visual indicator, if there is no
> reason?

No, it seems you missed the point of my questions.  You and several 
others are arguing that we should drop <b> and <i> in favour of adding 
more specific semantic elements.  I am asking you to be more specific.

> (There, I just made the word "reason" purple in this HTML rich
> exchange

Purple?  Sorry, plain text only. but I'll just pretend it was.

>  - you tell me why; why is the phrase"visual indicator" both red and
> italicized? Why is "What is the point" underlined?*) 

I'm sure you did it to set up a straw man argument in a vein attempt to 
prove your point, whatever that may be.

I wasn't asking if there are any use cases for <b> and <i>.  I'm saying 
there are use cases for which bold and/or italic are typographical 
conventions, and I was asking you to pick at least one and answer the 
questions for it.

* What's the semantics you're trying to represent?

e.g. a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from 
another language, a thought or a ship name are commonly rendered in 
italics, and there are other use cases for bold.  Pick  at least one and 
then answer the remaining questions.

* Whats the use case for the semantics? (Why would authors use it? Real 
world example content would be good)
* 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

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 09:42:46 UTC