Re: [WSG] semantic way to use subscript or superscript
I agree to a large extent, but sometimes one has to consider: 1. Using MathML or CML is not an option as they are not supported by most (actually used) user agents. CML, one can argue, is also not a W3C-standard. 2. For very simple math or chemistry MathML and CML could be considered overkill. If I just wan't to mention a simple oxygen molecule in a sentence I think it is quite alright to use Osub2/sub. The markup emshould/em not cause a screen-reader to say anything special - and that's how I intend it to be. There are many XML-implementations that does a better job at conveying semantic meaning than XHTML for various niche data. I would argue as long as one is writing normal, non-expert level detailed, text, XHTML is doing fine. If I was to write a essay specifically about chemistry it becomes another ballgame, though. 3. Span is no more semantic than sub or sup, if its only used to create a visual effect. I can't see why abbr title=Mademoiselle lang=frMsuplle/sup/abbr is worse than using a span. Actually I like it better, as the superscript in a way is part of the language idiom. Lars Gunther Patrick H. Lauke wrote: In my opinion, sub and sup have a primarily visual/presentational nature, rather than a semantic one. I'm still puzzled as to why they're still included in the specs, which does nothing to clarify the *meaning* of superscript and subscript...only their visual rendering. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.3 Even the three examples given are flawed, IMHO: the first two should arguably not be marked up in HTML at all, but via a more appropriate (though admittedly not universally supported) one like CML and MathML, respectively; the third is also just a matter of presentation, and could possibly be marked up a lot better via abbr title=Mademoiselle lang=frMspanlle/span/abbr (with an appropriate style defined for the span to make it visually render as superscript). ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] semantic way to use subscript or superscript
Thank you. Patrick H. Lauke wrote: dszady wrote: I also remember a post saying not to use the two elements but it didn't mention why. In my opinion, sub and sup have a primarily visual/presentational nature, rather than a semantic one. I'm still puzzled as to why they're still included in the specs, which does nothing to clarify the *meaning* of superscript and subscript...only their visual rendering. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.3 Even the three examples given are flawed, IMHO: the first two should arguably not be marked up in HTML at all, but via a more appropriate (though admittedly not universally supported) one like CML and MathML, respectively; the third is also just a matter of presentation, and could possibly be marked up a lot better via abbr title=Mademoiselle lang=frMspanlle/span/abbr (with an appropriate style defined for the span to make it visually render as superscript). It's the same as bold and italic still being included in the spec... P -- °¿° dszady; a.k.a. Daryl A. Szady ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] semantic way to use subscript or superscript
dszady wrote: I also remember a post saying not to use the two elements but it didn't mention why. In my opinion, sub and sup have a primarily visual/presentational nature, rather than a semantic one. I'm still puzzled as to why they're still included in the specs, which does nothing to clarify the *meaning* of superscript and subscript...only their visual rendering. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.3 Even the three examples given are flawed, IMHO: the first two should arguably not be marked up in HTML at all, but via a more appropriate (though admittedly not universally supported) one like CML and MathML, respectively; the third is also just a matter of presentation, and could possibly be marked up a lot better via abbr title=Mademoiselle lang=frMspanlle/span/abbr (with an appropriate style defined for the span to make it visually render as superscript). It's the same as bold and italic still being included in the spec... P -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
