[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>
fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net
Thu Jan 11 00:27:57 PST 2007
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—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>.
More information about the whatwg