W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2007

[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>

From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:51:08 +0000
Message-ID: <BAY109-F98FA9DADB2A015A4790AEB4B10@phx.gbl>

From: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
>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.

Actually, when I think about it, the ability to express such semantics 
*could* be moved to the class="" attribute, e.g. class=important and 
class=emphasis, with perhaps both being appliciable to all of <strong>, <b>, 
<em> and <i>, and perhaps some others too. Perhaps that will be better 
understood by authors.

Or perhaps we don't need a way to express these semantics.

I don't know. I don't like giving up on things, though. :-( If it leads to 
this then adding <em> and <strong> to HTML was a mistake in the first place.

Simon Pieters

Titta p? livekonserter - exklusivt p? MSN 
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:51:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:51 UTC