- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:48:04 -0500
- To: gtn@ebt.com
- CC: stephanos@hol.gr, ngalarneau@concord6.powersoft.com, www-style@w3.org
From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com> | | >These should be depreciated. An idea would be that in Cougar, the EM, | >STRONG, CODE etc. tags be given 1-letter names while B I S U etc be given | >longer names to encourage useability and readability of the former. | | Good grief. HTML has enough prsentational markup already without | *encouraging* it's use, and discouraging the use of structural markup. | | What on earth does <BOLD> mean to a blind user? What does <EMPH> mean? | | This proposal shows a very clear *misunderstanding* of the funamaental | justification for CSS... or any stylesheet for that matter. --- I think *you* misunderstood what you quote, which is exactly what you recommend. The proposal was to give 1-character names to the "structural" tags (EM, STRONG, etc.), to encourage their use, and that longer names be required for the "presentational" tags (B, I, etc.). The underlying assumption is that a shorter name encourages use. Personally, I think we should lose *all* the 1-character versions... As to BOLD versus EM, I suspect most blind people would recognize them as synonymous, for text description purposes. Except for one or two obscure technical uses (like the volume number in citations of articles in serials), bold has no special meaning beyond "emphasized". In this it differs from italics, where many of the uses are standardized and would be better replaced by specialized markup or by CLASSes (e.g., book titles, foreign words). scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Friday, 23 August 1996 11:50:38 UTC