Jutta Wrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (06/10/2005): > > Am 06.10.2005 um 14:31 schrieb Fr�d�ric Bothamy: > > > I agree that <em> and <strong> should be preferred, but I did not see > > anywhere in the HTML specifications > > (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html) that they should > > not > > be used, even using "HTML Strict". > > Please read the notes about accessibilty and what css and HTML tags > are for. Rendering (presentation) should go to css with HTML strict. > HTML tags are for pointing out what the content is (paragraph, link, > quotation heading and so on). > > And <b> and <i> is font rendering.
Where can we found a patch of all the changes you have applied? I found nothing at http://www.witch.westfalen.de/debian/diff/ but you are still introducing typography mistakes by fixing <i> with <q> :-( And it is really not easy to track these mistakes file by file. I don't know what is the best solution. To introduce some tags such as <book> and <foreignword> is really not easy for translators to mark something as italic. And the tag <foreignword> will depend on the language. Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
