Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
Just because something is visual doesn't mean that it doesn't have meaning.
Of course. But HTML has far more sophisticated ways to convey meaning behind the scenes than printed material, which intrinsically has to convey the extra meaning in a visual way. What came first? The extra meaning, or the way print designers / typesetters / etc had to implement it?
I have long been a member of the scientific community and I write Latin arthropod binomials. This is a visual thing, but it's something I want -- and feel necessary -- to convey whether CSS is supported or not.
And using a span with appropriate class (or similar) still carries this meaning...it's just that it doesn't, by default, present it *visually*, which should maybe not be expected in situations where CSS is off/not supported.
> I suspect the W3C would agree with this else they'd deprecate
these elements, but they haven't.
They also haven't deprecated sub/sup, but that's the same issue there. Basically, to preserve backwards compatibility, they can't deprecate them, imho, because there's no other markup element from the old set that can mark up the various meanings which, visually, translate to sub and sup.
But hey, it's just the idealist in me talking... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
