On 04/10/2010 13:55, Benoit Renard, msnmsgr wrote:
Matthew Wilson wrote:
I don't buy that all. If I write a mathematical formula using <sup> or
a chemical formula using <sub> then that's semantic.
The sup and sub elements have no semantic meaning assigned to them.
Their only (aesthetic) meaning is "supscripted text" and "subscripted
text", respectively. Please do some research.
I did, and here's what I found.
HTML 4.01 discusses the elements in the context of "Structured text".
Specifically, it says that "Elements that present text (alignment
elements, font elements, style sheets, etc.) are discussed elsewhere in
the specification." In other words, HTML 4.01 does not consider them to
be presentational elements.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html
In addition, in the specific section for sub and sup, the first two
examples, similar to the ones I gave above, are clearly semantic. (I
won't judge the third example, as I'm not a French speaker.)
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.2.3
As far as I can see, the elements are neither deprecated nor obsoleted
in HTML Strict or XHTML Strict.
HTML5 is quite explicit that these elements are semantic. They are
listed in the section "Text-level semantics" and the accompanying text
is unambiguous:
"These elements must be used only to mark up typographical conventions
with specific meanings, not for typographical presentation for
presentation's sake. "
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-sub-and-sup-elements
W3C's accessibility guidelines also list these elements as semantic:
"Some semantic elements are not supported well by assistive
technologies. Elements and attributes that are known to have limited
support include code, del, dfn, ins, kbd, s, sub, sup, tt, and q."
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H49.html
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Project_owners mailing list
Project_owners@mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
