On 3/6/07, Herdsman Caedmon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ... All volunteers will know what a paragraph is, for
> example, ...
You'd be surprised... ;)
Just like in HTML, the <p> tag is easily abused. For instance, a
quoted line of text that is set off on its own line inside a paragraph
... most people will mark that as a paragraph, when it is semantically
a part of the larger paragraph. But I digress...
> Keeping in the spirit of something Peter said, I wonder if the best
> approach might be to use relatively generic tags for things like bold
> and italics and underlining in texts where the meaning is not clear or
> open to the least ambiguity, certainly when mass tagging. These could be
> later extracted and looked at by people who need a finer level of
This is the general philosophy I was taking into it, but there have
been some very vocal people who absolutely and categorically seem to
HATE anything non-semantical (to the point that it has been proposed
to ban the rend attribute and beat anyone caught using the <hi> tag!)
... Ok, maybe I exaggerate. Ex-communicate instead of physical
Personally, I think such a stance, while from a theoretical standpoint
is commendable, in a real-world scenario is unworkable.
> If this approach makes sense, then a legitimate question might be how
> far to carry out the use of <hi rend="italics"> instead of semantic
That is indeed to crux of the arguments. Any "expert" opinions would
be wonderful to have! :)