Big and complex invariably leads to extinction, if the geological record is to believed.
:) -- Stephen Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philip TAYLOR > Sent: 08 January 2008 13:40 > To: Lachlan Hunt > Cc: Peter Krantz; HTMLWG; Ben Boyle > Subject: Re: Underline element. > > > Once upon a time, Mankind communicated through a series of > grunts. As language emerged, proto-man expressed concepts as > simply as possible : "Mammoth : kill" or "Sabre-tooth tiger : > run". As we continued to evolve, so did our language, and > now there are many amongst us who prefer to use language as a > surgeon's scalpel rather than as a mechanic's mallet. > > In just the same way, markup languages have evolved over > time, and many of us (but clearly not yet all) seek to > express not-so-subtle distinctions such as "Ship-name" v. > "Linnaean-binomial" > v. "Book-title" through the medium of our markup. Surely it > is not too much to ask that the dinosaurs who can see no > further than "<i>" > to express all of these recognise that their time is long > since past, and yield gracefully to those who are preparing > for the future ? > > Philip TAYLOR > -------- > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > Beyond the typographical convention of italicising ship names in > > English prose, what compelling use case is there for > extracting such a > > ship name from such prose? Why would an author have any desire to > > add such markup using a custom vocabulary that few tools, > if any, will > > understand and even fewer users would have any use for? > > > > It seems to me that simply using <i> for the ship name > (perhaps using > > a class name for additional styling purposes) fulfills the the > > typographical convention use case, without the unnecessary > addition of > > RDFa. > > > >
