- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:00:19 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:06:19AM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > My own personal stance would be less extreme than this, merely that > new versions of the standard should be informed by how previous > versions were actually used, and adapt some extent. Markup languages Indeed. Which is why - again - the I- and B-elements should not be given any semantic interpretation /based on how they are actually used in the wild/. I don't know how I can make this point any more clear. > > is an actual header just because the author thought it was > > a good idea at the time. > > This probably would be non-trivial to deduce, yes, but I also think > this is a pretty rare way to say "header" compared to <div > class="header"> or <h1>. It doesn't matter. It /is/ a real-world example of why the B-element /cannot/ be redefined as being equal to STRONG; the rarity of misuse notwithstanding. A quick grep through 22,221 HTML documents currently in archive show 4,894 uses of the B-element. A sample of the pages reveal that some use it instead of STRONG, some instead of H*, and some documents use it for /both/, on the same page. > It seems like part of your objection may be based on unfamiliarity > with the contents of the spec. I frankly don't understand on why you insist on this particular form of argumentation - it is vaguely unpleasant. Could it be that I am familiar with the specification and *disagree with it*? The theory that "disagreement is only due to ignorance" doesn't hold water. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 13:00:25 UTC