- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:55:32 +0300
- To: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: "'Patrick H.Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, <www-html@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
On May 3, 2007, at 18:12, 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, More to the point, authors don't care to make it explicit what the reason is even though there is a reason. > But if you can't *SEE* the bold, italic or underlined text, how do you > convey that same cue/clue to the end consumer? For the sighted user, > presentational features are not bad, but for the non-sighted, pray > tell, how > will you convey that same nuance? By making the default UA presentation of <i> match the default presentation of <em> and making the default presentation of <b> match the default UA presentation of <strong>. (And by making these different from normal paragraph text.) > So I will turn the tables - give me a good, realistic use-case where > presenting nuanced information to some users, while excluding > others, is > "good". That's not what I'm suggesting. OTOH, on the face of it, it seems to be what the <span style=''> advocates are suggesting. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 11:55:45 UTC