- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:30:14 +0200 (CEST)
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
- cc: mjs@apple.com, foliot@wats.ca, hsivonen@iki.fi, redux@splintered.co.uk, bzbarsky@MIT.EDU, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On 3 May, T.V Raman wrote:
> A) <b> and <i> are perfect fine to retain
> --not so much because of legacy support, because in
> practice <em> is no more semantic than <i>.
I'll admit you lost me there. No HTML element is inherently semantic,
but a semantic interpretation is possible after the "semantic value"
has been defined in, for instance, prose.
<EM> has, as far as it has existed, been defined with a specific,
semantic, "value". <I> has not - and, consequently, it has been used
to create italic text. That was, after all, its purpose.
Would you say that P, in practice, is no more semantic than DIV, since
very few UAs actually do anything MORE with a P than they do with a
DIV?
> B) I believe presentational markup is evil.
We certainly agree there.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies (UK) Ltd.
tina@greytower.co.uk http://www.greytower.co.uk
+46 708 557 905
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 18:56:10 UTC