Nic wrote:
What the WHATWG are doing which I think is clever, is they're reusing
existing, meaningless presentational elements where they can. If I
remember correctly, <i> has been re-specified too.
Quite the contrary, it's asking for problems.
Yes, I agree. Reusing presentational elements for semantic purposes is
a mistake and has been criticised on the whatwg mailing list several times.
How long have <i> and <b> been deprecated?
They're not deprecated.
Why are some editors still using it?
Because they target authors that still think presentationally about
their documents, rather than those that think semantically.
Do you *really* think that a re-specification will catch on?
No, it won't for presentational elements. However, the refined
definitions for the more semantic elements will probably stand more chance.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
