- From: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:04:59 +0100
- To: Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Stephen Stewart wrote: >> I concur completely with both your exclamation point and your >> question mark. It's nutty advice that will be ignored by authors. > > How is it "nutty" and why will it be ignored by authors? It is nutty because it suggests that a semantically empty element (which is how the <b> element is now defined) is somehow suitable for marking up the semantics of a person being cited in a dialogue ...while obstinately refusing the accept that the existing practice of marking up cited people with the <cite> element is a viable option. I know it will be ignored by authors because authors are smart. A smattering from Twitter today: http://twitter.com/gcarothers/statuses/4009205966 "Jaw, floor, WHAT?! http://bit.ly/48Bhta Why in the world would #html5 suggest using <b> tags to markup names?" http://twitter.com/akamike/statuses/4008187173 "There are more appropriate tags than <b> for marking up names in conversations. “The b element should be used as a last resort…” #html5" http://twitter.com/cssquirrel/statuses/4009216559 "Well, if the <p><b> recommendations for dialog in #html5 persist for a week, I know what I’m drawing." But if more evidence is required, I'll see about putting together a representative sampling of authors, sitting them in front of a computer with a copy of Silverback fired up, and point them to the relevant part of the spec so that we can see their reactions. Keeping the <b> and <i> elements in HTML5 is already a lot for authors to have to swallow. To suggest that these elements should be used instead of more semantically appropriate elements isn't going to fly. -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 22:05:42 UTC