Hi,
From: Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Two of the four implementations that the WHATWG cares about interoperate.
Is it worthwhile to disrupt that situation—especially considering
that changes to Trident are the hardest for the WHATWG to induce?
Does the interoperability matter much in this case?
My conclusion is that semantic markup has failed in this case. <em> and
<i> are both used primarily to achieve italic rendering on the visual
media. <strong> and <b> are both primarily used to achieve bold rendering
on the visual media. Regardless of which tags authors type or which tags
their editor shortcuts produce, authors tend to think in terms of encoding
italicizing and bolding instead of knowingly articulating their profound
motivation for using italics or bold. Even those who have heard about the
theoretical reasons for using <em> and <strong> tend to decide which one
to use based on which one has the preferred default visual presentation
for the case at hand.
<em>, <strong>, <i> and <b> have all been in HTML for over a decade. I
think that’s long enough to see what happens in the wild. I think it
is time to give up and admit that there are two pairs of visually- oriented
synonyms instead of putting more time, effort, money, blog posts, spec
examples and discussion threads into educating people about subtle
differences in the hope that important benefits will be realized once
people use these elements the “right” way.
Compare with: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1137799947&count=1
Well... in that case <strong> needs to be defined as being equivalent to <b>
and <em> equivalent to <i>, and the ability to mark things as being
important or as stress emphasis is lost. Personally I don't want that, I'd
rather have IE emit the wrong thing for a while longer and the others do it
right.
That people misuse <em> and <strong> doesn't mean that we have to give up
and define them differently; if it were then we would probably also have to
define <table> and even HTML as a whole to be a visual layout tool.
However as it is now the spec sort of contradicts itself -- it says <strong>
must only be used to denote importance yet the contenteditable "bold"
feature will emit <strong>.
[...]
Regards,
Simon Pieters
_________________________________________________________________
Alla lediga jobb för bartenders http://jobb.msn.monster.se/
