I have to agree with you Mordechai - a very good point!
On 2/8/07, Mordechai Peller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Buchanan wrote: > Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. I strongly disagree. All glyphs have an agreed upon meaning as indicated by their context[1]. They are *NOT* abbreviations. Is a capital sigma a glyph representing summation or a letter in the Greek alphabet? And since all letters, numbers, punctuation, and other related symbols are glyphs, what you're are proposing (admittedly, taken to the extreme) is... <p><abbr title="The English letter T">T</abbr><abbr title="The English letter h">h</abbr><abbr title="The English letter i">i</abbr><abbr title="The English letter s">s</abbr><abbr title="The English exclamation mark">!</abbr><abbr title="The English question mark">?</abbr></p> [1]A long and thorough discussion of this can be found in "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid," by Douglas R. Hofstadter. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
