- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:59:43 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
> Most of them are never used simply because their use cases aren't common > in regular writing. OTOH, structures that ARE commonly used have been That's not strictly true of CITE or DFN in my view. A more accurate statement would be that they are not commonly used in advertising copy and authors see inadequate benefit in using them over the presentational markup which produces the same effect in English language visual or hardcopy output. As I think we want to discourage presentational markup, this latter reason ought to be considered an invalid counter argument. The DFN concept is actually heavily used in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has a somewhat confused use of HTML in that it is largely used as a presentational intermediate format for rendering, even though you can pass through structural HTML as well. Wikipedia's standard rendering of the DFN semantic concept is bold (rather than the traditional italics) and it is achieved by either recognizing a link to the current page, or by explicit use of the Wikipedia language's equivalent of STRONG.
Received on Saturday, 25 March 2006 11:15:47 UTC