On Jan 10, 2007, at 14:40, Simon Pieters wrote:
From: Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
If I was writing a cross-browser CMS with a contenteditable-based
editor, I'd be seriously unhappy about what WebKit does. The
differences between what IE, Opera and Firefox produce can be dealt
with relatively easily, but it would still be uncool to have to deal
with them. So, yes, interop would be desirable.
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.
My point is that if the consumer of the markup cannot make practical
use of the distinction, making the distinction on the producer side
becomes pointless to the extent the production of markup is about
communication with a consuming party. The ability of the producer to
use whatever private distinction him/herself for styling wouldn't be
affected.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
