[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>
zcorpan at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 10 21:51:08 PST 2007
From: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan at hotmail.com>
>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.
Actually, when I think about it, the ability to express such semantics
*could* be moved to the class="" attribute, e.g. class=important and
class=emphasis, with perhaps both being appliciable to all of <strong>, <b>,
<em> and <i>, and perhaps some others too. Perhaps that will be better
understood by authors.
Or perhaps we don't need a way to express these semantics.
I don't know. I don't like giving up on things, though. :-( If it leads to
this then adding <em> and <strong> to HTML was a mistake in the first place.
Titta på livekonserter - exklusivt på MSN
More information about the whatwg