Le 2007-02-09 à 16:36, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
No, the use cases for <m> are clear, and it is different from both
<em> and <strong>. I think it should be kept as-is, though its
definition in the spec clearly needs to be improved.
Suggestion of an improvement to the spec:
"The m element represents a run of text marked or highlighted for
reference purposes."
I think adding "for reference purposes" to the current definition
helps distinguish it from importance (given by <strong>) or stress
emphasis (given by <em>).
<em> : stress emphasis (changes the meaning)
<strong> : importance (no change in meaning)
<m> : reference marker (no change in meaning or importance)
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
