Jim Ley wrote:
Absolutely, which is why you constrain the problem to something manageable.
My point is that constraining a toolset doesn't make WYSIWYG editing
more manageable from semantics point of view. If users don't care about
semantics they just will be irritated with constraints they don't
understand.
On the contrary I think that the editor should provide more controls:
semantic ones and presentational. They shloud be very clearly separated
and their result should just look differently. The idea is to show users
this difference and expect them to use appropriate tools for their task.
This, however, won't work for the majority of people who doesn't care if
they should use <i> or <em>. But not only because it's just hard to make
clear distinction between them in a WYSIWYG environment. I also don't
think that software can somehow force people to think more beyond their
immediate needs, about things like 'benefits of semantic markup for the
network as a whole'...
P.S. This and previous my posting aren't actually related to the
contentEditable vs. accept="text/html" argument. Thus changing the
subject...
