- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:13:42 -0500
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> >All other URIs from the reserved vocabulary constitute the ''disallowed
> >vocabulary'' of OWL 2 and=20
> ><em title=3D"MUST in RFC 2119 context" class=3D"RFC2119">MUST NOT</em>=20
>
> I wonder why we use a "<em>" tag here, instead of "<i>". We don't want
> to emphasize anything, but want to make sure that the browser prints
> the word in an "italicized" way.
I doubt anyone will notice or care which we use, but on the off-chance
they do, as I understand it, <em> is actually the better choice because
it's closer to intent/semantics. Italicizing is just a way to emphasize
things; in some cases there may be better ways. For instance, how
should a screen reader intone "MUST NOT"? The reason I think this
doesn't matter is that (I suspect) screen readers render <i> elements as
if they were <em> elements.
> And why not just use a "<span>" tag, and having /all/ rendering =
> information in the "RFC2119" class?
Because it's good practice to make the document render as readably as
possible (give or take other good practices, eg around table use) even
when CSS processing is not being done.
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 13:14:03 UTC