I'm going to take a slightly different take on this thread. <u>, <b> and <i> elements are good examples of what's wrong with HTML front the point of view of minority and lesser used languages. CSS also has inherent problems, but that's another story.
On Sat, March 29, 2008 9:52 pm, Keryx Web wrote: > > Abusing <em> just for italics or <strong> just for bolding, when no > emphasis is intended is the same *sort of* abuse as using tables for > layout. It is only abuse of a slightly lesser degree. > i'd agree. although i'd go further and say that browsers implementing italic as default presentation for <em> and bold as default presentation for <strong> are also wrong. Its attempting to make the typographic conventions of the Latin and Cyrillic scripts universal when they aren't. Its poor internationalization. > <b> and <i> are actually lesser evils than inline styles, which may be > the only option left if they are removed. They are less bloated and way > easier to handle from a programming point of view. > <b> and <i> have no universal meaning. They have no universal applicability. They are limited to certain typographic traditions and certain scripts. > As the HTML 5 standards stands today, this is the view of the working > group as well. The standard will provide some additional use cases where > <b> and <i> perhaps should be considered the best (or least sucky) > option available. > And what about cases where it should never be used? using <b> and <i> implies that you have bold, italic and bold-italic fonts to display the text with. On a standard Windows install for instance, how many scripts actually do have such fonts compared to the scripts that don't have these fonts? > > 1. A. Never use <b> and <i> when there is a usable element with semantic > meaning. > I'd add never use <b> and <i> when content needs to be internationalized. > 1. B. But do *not* use semantic elements outside of their defined > meaning, which is even worse. > Do not apply default presentation to semantic elements when content is to be internationalized. > > * CMS software and an editor that can not access predefined classes > should prefer <b> and <i> over inline styles. > Such a CMS and editor is poorly internationalized and has limited scope. Andrew ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
