[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>
zcorpan at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 10 04:40:55 PST 2007
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—especially considering
>that changes to Trident are the hardest for the WHATWG to induce?
Does the interoperability matter much in this case?
>My conclusion is that semantic markup has failed in this case. <em> and
><i> are both used primarily to achieve italic rendering on the visual
>media. <strong> and <b> are both primarily used to achieve bold rendering
>on the visual media. Regardless of which tags authors type or which tags
>their editor shortcuts produce, authors tend to think in terms of encoding
>italicizing and bolding instead of knowingly articulating their profound
>motivation for using italics or bold. Even those who have heard about the
>theoretical reasons for using <em> and <strong> tend to decide which one
>to use based on which one has the preferred default visual presentation
>for the case at hand.
><em>, <strong>, <i> and <b> have all been in HTML for over a decade. I
>think that’s long enough to see what happens in the wild. I think it
>is time to give up and admit that there are two pairs of visually- oriented
>synonyms instead of putting more time, effort, money, blog posts, spec
>examples and discussion threads into educating people about subtle
>differences in the hope that important benefits will be realized once
>people use these elements the “right” way.
>Compare with: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1137799947&count=1
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
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>.
Alla lediga jobb för bartenders http://jobb.msn.monster.se/
More information about the whatwg