


From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:03:37 +0200
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <20070423160337.GG15848@greytower.net>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:31:52PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> In writing that uses the Latin script, italicization is more sticky  
> than the typeface. Hence, italics are closer to being part of the  
> content.

  isn't structural.

> You seem to be assuming that semantic markup is good for the sake of  
> semantics. I see semantic markup as merely a means to achieve media  

  I would be quite interested in hearing you explain

  And frankly, no, 'media independence' doesn't make much sense in
  this context. A DIV with styling set in various media-specific
  stylesheets would be media independent, but not much of worth

> independence. The reality is that normal people don't want to encode  
> the reason why they italicized something. They just want to select  
> some text, hit ctrl-i or command-i and be done with it.

  If people, as you yourself say, has no interest in using the I-element
  for semantic purposes, then why is anyone at all suggesting replacing
  the previous definition - it's presentational - with a new one
  that specify it to have a semantic meaning which people, again
  according to yourself, have no interest in using?

  Yes, people *do* want to italicize text that way. Fix the
  authoring tools to style the text the way the author want it instead
  of giving a up-to-this-point /presentational/ element which ought be
  removed semantic interpretation.

  basis for a new version of HTML!

 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 16:04:01 GMT
