- From: <JOrendorff@ixl.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:47:26 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
> And relying on stylesheets (as in 'EM EM {...}' to replace STRONG) is
> not the way to go. Stylesheets are _optional_ and a correct and
> understandable presentation shall be possible without them.
I agree with your point that <b> and <i> are just as presentational
as <font>.
But it is still senseless to have two tags (<em> and <strong>) where
one tag (<em>) would be just fine.
I believe your point above is that it is *currently* a bad idea to
use nested <em>s to indicate stronger emphasis. This is true, in the
absence of a W3C spec recommending the practice. But I hope the W3C
publishes just such a spec. Nested <em>s make more sense than having
two tags, <em> and <strong>, and no indication as to how they should
interact when nested inside one another.
Actually it is a touchy thing. To fully specify <em> (and <strong>
if it is worth keeping) would require a measure of the intended
emotional impact, perhaps measured in joules or milli-therapist-hours.
This would require stylesheet authors to measure carefully the impact
of font sizes and typefaces to
I think simplifying XHTML is important... and supporting old tags
is not as important.
--
Jason Orendorff
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2000 01:48:37 UTC