- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:00:37 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Quoting Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>: > No, this element doesn't need revision - it needs to be taken out, and > replaced with EM and, if required, more semantic elements. To echo was was mentioned before, but in a different context: what's the real-world situation where you'd need M rather than EM. And, if EM needs to be further "semanticised", could this just be done via class names/roles/ARIA/whatever. > Either the presentational bits go, or we're left with a > half-presentational language as since HTML 3.2. > > Is that what we want? But with extra funky bits that make web apps a lot easier to build :-P > One-size-fits-all doesn't even work in pantyhose. A content-centric > markup language with rich semantics is /needed/. This is the last > chance we have to get it right and still remain in the realm of HTML. I'd be all for this, yes. HTML (whatever version) should concentrate on rich semantics for content. If there's a need for anything further for facilitating Web Apps, then that could build on top of the revised HTML spec. 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 Thursday, 26 April 2007 16:00:42 UTC