- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 09:15:25 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Quoting Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: > So I'd like to know if your argument is about some of the current > elements allowed by the specification such as <b> or if it is about > user agents requirements in the parsing section, rendering section, et > cetera. There is a line between those two which I think is useful to > clearly mark. It's the former. I don't have an issue if browsers feel the need to still parse <b>, <i>, <sub>, <sup>, <small> ... heck, even things like <font>. But I do feel that the spec shouldn't allow those elements, and instead - where necessary - define better elements that cover those situations in which these elements are used as a last presentational resort. 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, 3 May 2007 08:17:44 UTC