- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:43:42 +0100
- To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Philip TAYLOR 08-02-09 09.43: > Ian Hickson wrote: >> In the spec as it stands today, <b> and <i> are not presentational > I for one will be seeking to ensure that this is corrected in > a future draft, and that the <b> and <i> elements do not > appear in the specification when it is finally released. Because a semantic defintion of <i>/<b> cause too much and too "fine grained" semantics? I.e. do you want a simplification of HTML? Or is the thought, that dropping <i>/<b> would not lead to as much misuse of <span> as <i>/<b> is misused? Or do you think it would not harm anyone if <em>/<strong> became misused/overused? (Which will happen if <b>/<i> become dropped.) But, since <b>,<i> and <span> means the same (namely "nothing" ...) then why only oppose <b> and <i>? Or, since they are synonyms, why not let them be used as synonyms - as variants of <span>? (As HTML 5 sort of suggests.) -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2008 06:44:05 UTC