- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 20:26:15 -0400
- To: tina@greytower.net
- Cc: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On 5/6/07, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote: > On 6 May, Murray Maloney wrote: > >> Only that, as mentioned, the ship's name should not always be > >> written as italics - and hence a 'neutral' element would be > >> a better choice. I suspect that part of the disagreement is over what emphasis means. This sounds like the emphasized text is more important than the rest. Some people see it merely as distinguished, and have asked for a "level" attribute, which might sometimes be negative. In the name case, it level would be zero. > I have, repeatedly, stated that the I-element as defined does not > convey any meaning, but the EM-element does. It is, in my opinion, the > /wrong decision/ to redefine the world and not expect to take the > consequences. If it meant nothing, then there would be no loss in recycling the token. If a document has no doctype (or explicitly claims to be html 4 or less), then this specification doesn't officially apply. When/if the document is modified to claim HTML5 compliance, then the authors can remove the (nominally meaningless) <i> if they want to avoid the default assumptions. -jJ
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 00:26:21 UTC