Aw: Re: HTML entities

[Mark Davis ☕️]

+1

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 12:26 Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
wrote:

> On 3/22/2021 10:37 AM, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:
>
> Dear Christoph,
>
> according to Mozilla [1],
>
> "The <sup> element should only be used for typographical reasons—that is,
> to change the position of the text to complywith typographical conventions
> or standards, rather than solely for presentation or appearance purposes."
>
> [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/sup
>
>
> Now, I have a hard time coming up with examples of "presentation or
> appearance" purposes that require small, raised letters or digits and are
> *not* related to some "typographical convention".
>
> The problem with <sup> seems to be more in the fact that there's more than
> one convention that might apply.
>
> A./
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Marius Spix
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. März 2021 um 18:17 Uhr
> *Von:* "Christoph Päper via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org>
> <unicode at unicode.org>
> *An:* unicode at unicode.org
> *Betreff:* Re: HTML entities
> Marius Spix via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> <unicode at unicode.org>:
> >
> > CSS is also no solution, because <sub> and <sub> are semantic tags (like
> <del>, <strong>, <em> and <kbd>) and not just stylistic ones (like <s>,
> <b>, <i> or <tt>).
>
> When HTML introduced the `b`/`strong` and `i`/`em` distinctions, it should
> also have added presentational/semantic pairs
>
> - `sup`/`exp` (exponent) or `pow` (power) and
> - `sub`/`idx`, `ind` (index) or `base`.
>
> I don’t think the WHATWG or W3C would be interested in adding them now.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210322/abca3546/attachment.htm>