[thelist] Bold vs. Strong

[aardvark]

> From: "Joshua Olson" <joshua at waetech.com>
[...]
> Keith, (and rudy, aardvark, et al)
> 
> I'm not really sure if anybody'll back down on this argument, but I do
> have one more general question... since XHTML is eXtensible HTML,
> would it be an option to define a new HTML tag in the DTD so that the
> markup still reflects the meaning of the information and not the
> presentation?
[...]
> The danger would seem to be--assuming that I'm in the correct mindset
> this morning--that defining one's own tags willy-nilly defeats one
> major purpose of XHTML... interoperability.  Other systems may be able
> to derive the syntax from the definition file, but they won't
> necessarily know what the new tags mean in the broader sense.
[...]

they kinda took that approach with ISO HTML... in fact, *they* got 
the whole heading thing down (rudy?):
http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20020204/068223.html

you can see the specs here:
http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/TC1.html

but yeah, they've done some of that, and their HTML doesn't break 
browsers, it just doesn't add much to the user experience...

and XHTML is designed to allow custom tags -- since it is XML...


--
my latest book project:
  Web Graphics for Non-Designers
  http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151159/evoltorg02-20
  ISBN: 1904151159