[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback
Håkon Wium Lie
howcome at opera.com
Fri Jan 7 03:42:54 PST 2005
Also sprach Matthew Thomas:
> > When I read the arguments for <b> and <i>, I like to think of them as
> > backwards-compatible synonyms for <strong> and <em>, respectively.
> > Whether or not to keep <b> and <i> themselves is a choice of backwards
> > compatibility over better-named semantic elements, IMO. But one must
> > realize that they are just that--semantic elements (<strong> and <em>,
> > that is).
> That belief is widespread, but completely misinformed. <strong> and
> <em> have existed since the first HTML draft spec, right next to <b>
> and <i>.
Almost, but not quite. The initial design did not include b/i or
Tim Berners-Lee commented on this issue in an early message:
Comparing MIME's rich text and HTML, I see that we lack the
characetr formatting attributes BOLD and ITALIC but on the other
hand I feel that our treatment of logical heading levels and other
structures is much more powerful and has turned out to provide more
flexible formatting on different platforms than explicit
semi-references to font sizes. This is born out by all the systems
which use named styles in preference to explicit formatting, LaTeX
or other macros instead of TeX, etc etc.
I quote this just to get history right, I'm not arguing any point.
> HTML has always been a mixture of semantic elements for common
> semantics, and presentational elements for everything else. That
> combination has allowed it to remain both semantic enough for device
> independence and aggregation, and simple enough for popular use.
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
More information about the whatwg