RE: Underline element.

Big and complex invariably leads to extinction, if the geological record
is to believed.

:)

--

Stephen Stewart
sstewart@mtld.mobi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Philip TAYLOR
> Sent: 08 January 2008 13:40
> To: Lachlan Hunt
> Cc: Peter Krantz; HTMLWG; Ben Boyle
> Subject: Re: Underline element.
> 
> 
> Once upon a time, Mankind communicated through a series of 
> grunts.  As language emerged, proto-man expressed concepts as 
> simply as possible : "Mammoth : kill" or "Sabre-tooth tiger : 
> run".  As we continued to evolve, so did our language, and 
> now there are many amongst us who prefer to use language as a 
> surgeon's scalpel rather than as a mechanic's mallet.
> 
> In just the same way, markup languages have evolved over 
> time, and many of us (but clearly not yet all) seek to 
> express not-so-subtle distinctions such as "Ship-name" v. 
> "Linnaean-binomial"
> v. "Book-title" through the medium of our markup.  Surely it 
> is not too much to ask that the dinosaurs who can see no 
> further than "<i>"
> to express all of these recognise that their time is long 
> since past, and yield gracefully to those who are preparing 
> for the future ?
> 
> Philip TAYLOR
> --------
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 
> > Beyond the typographical convention of italicising ship names in 
> > English prose, what compelling use case is there for 
> extracting such a 
> > ship name  from such prose?  Why would an author have any desire to 
> > add such markup using a custom vocabulary that few tools, 
> if any, will 
> > understand and even fewer users would have any use for?
> > 
> > It seems to me that simply using <i> for the ship name 
> (perhaps using 
> > a class name for additional styling purposes) fulfills the the 
> > typographical convention use case, without the unnecessary 
> addition of 
> > RDFa.
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 14:38:20 UTC