-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/27/12 5:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/31/12 6:43 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote: > >> I am also not sure about the <strong/> and <blockquote/> >> elements: they are shown as a recommended element to support >> (7.8), but the business rules (8.7) states that they should not >> be used, but rather <span/> or <p/> with appropriate style >> attributes. Is it only for backward compatibility, then? > > I think we need a broader discussion of this topic, since it caused > so much controversy when we first defined XHTML-IM. I will review > the old list discussion and more modern opinions on this topic, > then post to the list again. Here is the relevant business rule: ### The use of structural elements is NOT RECOMMENDED where presentational styles are desired, which is why very few structural elements are specified herein. Implementations SHOULD use appropriate 'style' attributes (e.g., <span style='font-weight: bold'>this is bold</span> and <p style='margin-left: 5%'>this is indented</p>) rather than XHTML structural elements (e.g., <strong/> and <blockquote/>) wherever possible. ### That now seems wrongheaded to me. Sure, *if* you just want a pretty presentation (say, a bit of green-colored text), then 'style' attributes are appropriate. However, it seems to me that if you want to quote something or emphasize something then using <blockquote/> or <em/> is the right thing to do. (I also wonder why we don't support <q/> for inline quotation...) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB25IIACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx/4QCfeOT5n8Hq9vF4vYBQEvpcLADQ pvIAnAuoUaJdM0IxYcFWaGDQn9cJ/h6r =pV+0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
