Patrick Griffiths wrote:
<i> certainly isn't the way to go though with either argument - language is supposed to be independent of presentation, be it visual or aural or whatever.
HTML 3.2 was not supposed to be independent [1], XHTML 2 should be independent and HTML4.1/XHMTL 1 is in between, I think.
What if the biologists that be decided to change the way this was normally presented? What if it was deemed to be better to be in bold rather than italics? Your HTML would then be semantically incorrect. Hypothetical, but logical.
I prefer to think practical :)
I think it's right to completely separate meaning and presentation and I think it's right to deprecate i.
Until it's not deprecated you can use it as a schortcut for <span style="font-style:italic">zZz</span>. (Sure, only if you don't want to change the style later.)
XHTML 2 will not be backwards compatible anyway.
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32.html#font-style>
Tonico
-- Tonico Strasser ?:-) http://Tonico.FreeZope.org
Contact_Tonico at Yahoo dot de
Check out http://www.WebProducer.at
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
