Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3770Re: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@yahoo.com>
    Feb 21, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Chapman" <greg@e...> wrote:
      .
      >
      > I'm with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious
      point that
      > the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also has
      > absolutely no meaning.
      >
      > Whilst, I must confess, I only use visual browsers and only expect
      my users
      > to do so, and so, in the real world, I do tend to use <I> tags, I do
      > completely accept the thrust of the W3C, that style and structure
      should be
      > separated.
      >

      no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing
      "structural" about <em> and <strong>. both are just as presentational
      as <i> and <b>; only difference is, the rendering of <em> and <strong>
      is not declared by the html standard, but was only conventionally
      treated as italics and bold-weight by the browsers.

      anyway, this is offtopic so I'll shut up.

      stp
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic