- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:11:59 +0200
On Jan 10, 2007, at 14:40, Simon Pieters wrote: > From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi> >> Two of the four implementations that the WHATWG cares about >> interoperate. Is it worthwhile to disrupt that >> situation—especially considering that changes to Trident >> are the hardest for the WHATWG to induce? > > Does the interoperability matter much in this case? If I was writing a cross-browser CMS with a contenteditable-based editor, I'd be seriously unhappy about what WebKit does. The differences between what IE, Opera and Firefox produce can be dealt with relatively easily, but it would still be uncool to have to deal with them. So, yes, interop would be desirable. > Well... in that case <strong> needs to be defined as being > equivalent to <b> and <em> equivalent to <i>, and the ability to > mark things as being important or as stress emphasis is lost. My point is that if the consumer of the markup cannot make practical use of the distinction, making the distinction on the producer side becomes pointless to the extent the production of markup is about communication with a consuming party. The ability of the producer to use whatever private distinction him/herself for styling wouldn't be affected. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 05:11:59 UTC