[Sorry, I'm getting off-topic for the list] In article <000001c2c1e0$13749e00$5800a8c0@pftqg.com>, Patrick Quinn-Graham <lists@pftqg.com> wrote:
Of course, really we should be using <em> and <strong>...
I've done a couple of sites in only CSS type thing, and it's easy enough to do, and isn't hard to degrade nicely. In any case, text browsers won't do <i>, which is generally more valuable (than, say U).
Yes, text browsers generally won't do I, which is a pity; I think, of all terminal emulators that I have encountered, only aixterm can do italics. I am for CSS, but I do disagree strongly about W3C's notion of "style" tags having no semantic relevance, which is of course false since semantic relevance depends on how you use it (partly depending on what the text on the web page says). And I have a strong feeling that they are deprecating useful things and at the same time creating new useless things because they don't understand how HTML is being used. (And, judging from their lack of interest in fixing the block-level-element mess, they don't even understand the languages--English even--that web pages are written in, so much for descriptive markup.) For example, they say U is just "style", but in reality they don't know that in Chinese U is a full-fledged punctuation mark (you might say "deprecated", but it is still taught in schools and people still use it) and therefore always semantically relevant in at least one language, yet there is no way to achive U, other than using U, under a normal text-browser environment. Another example: the new CSS "word-break" property, obviously designed for CJK, is, I must point out, completely useless because it requires the text to be in a "block" display context, when the only use for such a property is when the text is in an "inline" display context. Just my own $0,2's worth, -- Ambrose LI Cheuk-Wing <a.c.li@ieee.org> -- Ambrose LI Cheuk-Wing <a.c.li@ieee.org>