Trusz, Andrew wrote:
Here's how xhtml2.0 defines the text module which includes [sup][...]
Note in particular the phrase "in this case it is intended to only have a semantic meaning." That seems pretty clear. While that may or may not be the current definition of [sup], it certainly seems to be headed for a structural/semantic definition since it is defined in this module.
So split hairs, "in this case *IT* is intended to only have a semantic meaning". The "semantic meaning" bit only refers to the use of the phrase 'inline level', not to the elements themselves...
However, I'm waiting with baited breath to see how they're going to define the semantics of elements which are presentational already in their name, and can contain such disparate types of content as mathematic exponents and french abbreviations. I'll be the 1<sup>st</sup> one to cheer when it happens...
-- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
