- From: Mike Batchelor <mikebat@clark.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 11:08:52 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Ka-Ping Yee once wrote... > > > In article <173DA10049S86.FLAVELL@cernvm.cern.ch>, > Alan J Flavell <FLAVELL@cernvm.cern.ch> wrote: > > > >I'm going to admit that when I'm marking up pages in a hurry, I > >do tend to use <b> and <i> when I really mean em or strong. But I > >don't extol that as a virtue - I know it's poor style. > > You know, there's some very unfortunate human psychology happening > here. When HTML was designed, why did they have to make <b> and > <i> so much SHORTER than <em> and <strong> ? Everyone shrinks away > a little from typing six times as much everywhere they want emphasis... > > And so people take the easiest way out. (I declare myself guilty > on some occasions as well.) But i do hope that these kinds of issues > will no longer be ignored. Sure, we want a good content-based standard, > but it doesn't hurt to have one that people tend to use because it has > more apparent convenience. I don't know if SGML supports the concept, but couldn't certain throwback tags like <i> and <b> be interpreted in the new standard as aliases for <em> and <strong>, with the goal of deprecating them in a future standard? -- %%%%%% mikebat@clark.net %%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/ %%%%%%
Received on Monday, 17 July 1995 11:11:15 UTC