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

Simon Pieters 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.

Simon Pieters

Titta på livekonserter - exklusivt på MSN 

More information about the whatwg mailing list