- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:53:32 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'public-html' <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 19:01, Richard Ishida wrote: >> A better sentence may be "Directional markup is useful because it >> applies to many right to left scripts, even though content in some >> scripts has no need of it." > > The <i> example was inserted deliberately to avoid the use of the > principle against <i>, which would be an easily foreseeable > misapplication of the principle if the example was left out. No, it would be an easily forseeable /application/ of the principle. > (I > suggested the example, so I know why it was meant for. :-) The > directionality example is reasonable, but it fails to pre-empt > misapplication against <i>. Absolutely no comment needed. > >> Certainly we should continue to support <b> and <i> tags, but we >> should encourage people to use <em> and <strong> instead. > > Merely renaming things and continuing to use them as before does not > really solve anything technical. Henri, you completely miss the point : RI is proposing that users create <em> and <strong> elements for /emphasised/ and for /strongly emphasised/ stretches of text respectively. To confuse (or conflate) this with elements denoting the intended typographic appearance of a particular stretch of text suggest such a basic lack of familiarity of the precepts of document markup that I find it difficult to believe that you are even suggesting that there could be any overlap between the two. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 13:54:15 UTC