W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Cleaning House

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:55:32 +0300
Message-Id: <6B7C2789-BFC1-42B7-8683-58835FA4DFA6@iki.fi>
Cc: "'Patrick H.Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, <www-html@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
To: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>

On May 3, 2007, at 18:12, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> It would be really nice if the advocates of semantic markup based
>> their advocacy on realistic use cases instead of an axiomatic belief
>> that more semantics are good and all presentational features are bad.
> It boils down to this:  If you want to Bold some text, or italicize  
> it, or
> underline it, you are doing so *for a reason*... I don't care  
> really what
> the reason is,

More to the point, authors don't care to make it explicit what the  
reason is even though there is a reason.

> But if you can't *SEE* the bold, italic or underlined text, how do you
> convey that same cue/clue to the end consumer?  For the sighted user,
> presentational features are not bad, but for the non-sighted, pray  
> tell, how
> will you convey that same nuance?

By making the default UA presentation of <i> match the default  
presentation of <em> and making the default presentation of <b> match  
the default UA presentation of <strong>. (And by making these  
different from normal paragraph text.)

> So I will turn the tables - give me a good, realistic use-case where
> presenting nuanced information to some users, while excluding  
> others, is
> "good".

That's not what I'm suggesting. OTOH, on the face of it, it seems to  
be what the <span style=''> advocates are suggesting.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 11:55:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC