- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:38:35 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
> The first is as the proper name mark in Chinese. Based on my research, it > seems this is actually quite rare, and equivalent more to Western > typographic conventions such as overlines on recurring decimals. As such, > it seems like a use case already handled by U+0332, This is simply not the case. The proper noun mark has to be a single line on multiple characters. > [...] > > Also, the CP implies that the definitions of<b>,<i>,<s>, and<small> > in HTML now are in bad faith -- that they are definitions intended to > cover an embarassment; maybe an excuse for allowing elements under a > pretext different than the actual rationale. After carefully reading the current draft, I am pretty willing to use <s> and <small>, hence I suggested "This section is non-normative" should be <small> in the CP, certainly not <i>. But this also shows the point, the current definition indeed creates an excuse for allowing <i> under a different pretext. > [...] It's possible that the definitions need some tightening up, as > the CP suggests, but to that end I would recommend that people file bugs > on the offending ambiguities. I can see that making <i> only mean just "technical term" as a way to go. I have no idea about <b>. It would be helpful to see real world examples on how <i> and <b> are styled differently from italics and bold. The current spec text "alternative voices" and "offset text" are just too close to "styled element." > I urge the proponents of this CP to consider why their arguments do not > apply to<font>,<big>,<layer>,<blink>,<tt>,<center>, align="", etc, > or if they do, to be consistent in their proposal and reintroduce all > these elements. I maintain that <b> <i> and <u> should have similar status. Normal people find it surprising that <b> and <i> are there given that this version of HTML is advertised as a semantic markup language. What was the rationale of redefining <b> and <i> instead of making them obsolete? Cheers, Kenny
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 01:38:04 UTC