- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:53:44 +0300
- To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, www-html@w3.org
On Apr 23, 2007, at 16:31, Tina Holmboe wrote: >> For *practical* purposes, <i> will continue to mean italics when >> applied to bicameral scripts on the visual media. > > Exactly how do you propose that a tool which, for instance, > retrieve taxonomic designations from documents to create an > index, see the difference between the I-element when used > for "practical purposes ... mean italics" and when used > as the WA1 suggest is SHOULD be used? I suggest that such a tool isn't a killer app for semantic markup and your scenario isn't a realistic use case. > And if we cannot use the encoded semantics because it can't > be differentiated from *presentational* use, then what's > the point in *changing the meaning* of <i>? “The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose——whose typical typographic presentation is italicized.” > It certainly can't be to maintain backwards compatibility, > since authors use the I-element to *make something italic* > regardless of *what* that something is. I agree that <i> should be defined as italics for bicameral scripts on visual media. > This topic, and many others, must be discussed and, frankly, > fixed. You are welcome to discuss topics related to HTML5 on the WHATWG mailing list today (and provided that the new HTML WG chooses HTML5 as the starting point, on public-html later). -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 15:54:26 UTC