- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 12:41:30 +0100
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: > Boris further wrote, quote: > There's nothing more "semantic" about superscripts/subscripts than > there is about italics. For example, H<sup>1</sup> could have any > of the following meanings off the top of my head just in > mathematics: > > 1) A number (or matrix, or whatever) H raised to the power one. > 2) First cohomology (group, vector space, etc). > 3) First component of a vector in differential geometry. > 4) A set of first-order expansions of elements of a set H (e.g. > power series). > 5) First graded component of the graded object H. > unquote > > your objection proves my point (as well as the larger point that > most of the use cases you have outlined would be better served as > MathML) -- there are at least 5 valid reasons why one would use > superscript, and a host of others for using subscripts to indicate, > for example, the atoms that comprise a molocule: > > <abbr title="Carbon Dioxide">CO<sub>2</sub></abbr> > > what, i ask you, does the use of italics mean semantically? as i > stated in another post, STRONG does not equate to B, nor EM to I; > these are all presentational questions, which properly belong in > the realm of styling, not structure. This debate doesn't make any sense to me. <sub>, <super>, <i>, <b> are used to indicate a variety of things, whereas semantic HTML and MathML are more specific. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 13:46:48 UTC