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="fr">M<span>lle</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
******************************************************
