- 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
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