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
> granularity.

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
> markup.

That is indeed to crux of the arguments.  Any "expert" opinions would
be wonderful to have!  :)