[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>
hsivonen at iki.fi
Fri Jan 12 00:41:42 PST 2007
On Jan 12, 2007, at 05:25, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Is the effort to get people to use CSS instead of spacer GIFs a bad
> Is the effort to get people to use <h1>..<h6> instead of <p><b> or
> <p><font> a bad idea?
No. In those cases the alternatives are substantially different
technically. Not only that, CSS is more powerful and makes things
substantially easier and more maintainable even for authors who don't
care about the philosophy behind the advocacy.
With <i> vs. <em>, the argument is over which identifier (opaque
string that can be compared for equality) is used as an element name.
There's no substantial technical difference.
> Is the effort to get people to use CSS instead of <table> for
> layout a bad idea?
It often is, sadly. When people really, really want a grid layout
model and try to fake it with positioning or floats, the result tends
to be more brittle and (particularly with positioning) less fluidly
scalable than a <table> layout (positioning being worse than floats
but see http://dbaron.org/log/2005-12#e20051228a ).
> There were, I'm sure, many more occurrences of those problems than
> there were improper uses of <em> and <strong>. And the efforts to
> replace them are much older than the effort to get people who don't
> think about semantics to use <b> and <i>, which has hardly even
> started yet.
Considering the IIIR draft I referenced and the Siegel article that
Anne mentioned, the <em> vs. <i> discussion seems to actually be
older. But regardless of the exact age of the debate, my secondary
point was that the expected payoff is so light that I don't think
spending another 14 years on this is worthwhile. My opinion would be
different if the expected payoff was insanely great.
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the whatwg