Re: what is dt?

Jeremy Keith wrote:
> 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:
> "Jaw, floor, WHAT?! Why in the world would #html5 
> suggest using <b> tags to markup names?"
> "There are more appropriate tags than <b> for marking up names in 
> conversations. “The b element should be used as a last resort…” #html5"
> "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.
You missed my favorite twitter reaction, at


Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:23:57 UTC