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?
...
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. Personally I don't want that,
I'd rather have IE emit the wrong thing for a while longer and the
others do it right.
That people misuse <em> and <strong> doesn't mean that we have to give
up and define them differently; if it were then we would probably also
have to define <table> and even HTML as a whole to be a visual layout tool.
However as it is now the spec sort of contradicts itself -- it says
<strong> must only be used to denote importance yet the contenteditable
"bold" feature will emit <strong>.
+1
~fantasai
