A reply that went to me, but probably should have gone to the entire list, or at least the OP...
---- > [my lengthy reply on semantic markup] Another reason is that usability-wise, only something that is a link is supposed to be underlined on the web. For a bibliographic reference, perhaps bolding the text instead of underlining it would be a good alternative. Otherwise, you might have people clicking the heck out of an underlined bit of text. Theresa ---- Rather than bold, italics would be a more appropriate alternative. APA (and MLA, and Chicago) style were for the most part designed with typewriters in mind. It was impossible to italicize titles on a typewriter without changing all your keys, so they went with underline instead. But computers don't have that limitation. And, by visiting the APA site, it appears that the style guide finds italicized titles a legitimate and proper substitute for underlining. This would lead to a similar complaint about the removal of <i>, I'm sure. But the semantic argument still applies. ---Tim ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
