[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>

[fantasai]

Simon Pieters wrote:
> 
> From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi>
>> Two of the four implementations that the WHATWG cares about  
>> interoperate. Is it worthwhile to disrupt that 
>> situation&#8212;especially  considering that changes to Trident are 
>> the hardest for the WHATWG to  induce?
> 
> Does the interoperability matter much in this case?
> ...
> 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>.

+1

~fantasai