- From: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Ian Samson <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>
- Cc: "Heinrich C. Kuhn" <kuhn@mpg-gv.mpg.de>, www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Ian Samson wrote: > Here is my 2c worth... > > scottm@danielson.co.uk (Scott Matthewman) wrote: > > > > Similarly, I think B and I should be deprecated. STRONG and EM are > > > preferable. > > IMHO, <STRONG> and <EM> are NOT preferable to <B> and <I> since <B> and <I> > are easier to type and don't waste space. Some HTML editors automate the > process for <B> and <I> but not for <STRONG> or <EM>! HTML is _not_ a vidual markup language, it is an intentional markup language. <STRONG> and <EM> (or <ADDRESS> or <CITE> or whatever else looks _on_your_browser_ like <I> or <B>) carry more information than <B> and <I>, and are thus useful in a much wider range of environments. > <I>, <B>, and <U> are used in Bibliographic information. Anyone publishing > academic research papers and publications on the Internet will know how > picky academics are about "correct" format. A more correct approximation of bibliographic typography can be made using CSS, without hurting the usefulness of your document in other media. > I disagree for the same reasons expressed above; except to add it would be > nice to be able to define two or more "styles" for the <DL>,<DT>, and <DD> > tags ... at present, if a document has need for numerous <DL> styles, the > document must be separated into individual .HTMLs! Nonsense. Go reread the sections on the use of CLASS and ID with CSS. -- Jim Wise jim.wise@turner.com
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 16:54:39 UTC