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

Re: code, samp, kbd, var

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 23:44:06 +0000 (UTC)
To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0705152339540.11553@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Tina Holmboe wrote:
> During the debate regarding HTML 5 it has, by several people, been 
> claimed, repeatedly, that presentational elements - all of them - will 
> be added to the new language as time go by.

They won't be added to the language. They'll be added to the UA rendering 
requirements section of the specification. Elements like <blink> will 
remain non-conforming, despite being specified in detail for UAs.

> > as it stands today the <i>, <b>, and <small> elements are not 
> > presentational. They stand for mood changes and other text that is neither 
> Not the choice I'd have made; nor the choice I wish the WG would make.

Indeed. It wasn't my first choice either (at one point I had dropped <i> 
and <b> altogether, and added a <t> to cover some of the cases that <i> 
now handles). However, we have to be pragmatic, and after several years of 
careful thought and design and research, we reached what the spec says 
now, which I think is a good compromise.

> The problem is, of course, that all three have established use - I 
> quoted one example of why <b> cannot be unambigously interpreted as 
> anything but presentational - that is not compatible with the 'new' 
> interpretation.

I do not believe it actually causes any practical problems, though there 
might be some theoretical ones.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 23:44:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:03 UTC