- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:04:10 +0200
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 08:41:23PM -0400, Murray Maloney wrote: > From the June 1993 Internet Draft for HTML: > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt > > STRONG Stronger emphasis, typically bold. > B Boldface, where available, otherwise alternative mapping > allowed. > EM Emphasis, typically italic. > I Italic font (or slanted if italic unavailable). Yes. Even that text prove my point. > elements. But consider <i class="ship">. Meaning nothing. Do you mean a ship name? Or is it an abbreviate name for a shipping label? Or perhaps even a status saying whether something is about to ship? > In "HTML as she are spoke," <i> and <em> are synonyms for most intents and > purposes. No. In HTML *in the wild* the I-element is used for italics, without thought or reason. If I cannot explain to you, so that you understand, the difference between "emphasized term" and "italics text", then that is no longer my failure to communicate. > Why not? > > I have been layering semantics onto the CLASS attribute and REL/REV since > 1993. With support from which standard? -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 10:04:18 UTC