- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:56:40 +0100
- To: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
Quoting Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>: > I don't have personal experience to comment on that, but I wasn't > surprised about T.V Raman having the same rule for both <i> and <em>: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0668.html That is his preference, of course, and based on the fundamental problem you already mention that, up to now, creation tools either just give access to <i> or naively map <em> as a replacement for <i>. > Dreamweaver MX, by default, maps command-i to <em>. I guess it makes > the output "more semantic" to some. No, DWMX's choice here was a very naive one. > Anyway, <dfn> has been available in the HTML spec for years so > technical writers who see its value could use it if they cared to. Writers, even technical ones, would rarely hand-code their HTML...they'd get an authoring or conversion tool for that. They may not even be aware of elements like those existed, but I'd posit that they'd use them if made more easily available. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 08:56:10 UTC