2 ms·
MDN's "interpretation" of <i> has… It’s not an MDN interpretation; this has been part of the HTML5 spec since day 1. I linked to a 12 year-old article earlier
by alwillis 4y ago
MDN's "interpretation" of <i> has…
It’s not an MDN interpretation; this has been part of the HTML5 spec since day 1.
I linked to a 12 year-old article earlier in this thread [1] describing this very thing when HTML5 was new.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33556432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33556432
- naniwaduni 4y agoAs far as I know, the spec still calls it "alternate voice or mood"; it's MDN, not the spec, that now calls it "idiomatic" text. So I stand by it being the MDN interpretation that's changed, not the spec (to pretend that it's not "we tried to remove it and failed" by making it something that at least actually starts with an I now, I guess, twice).
- ezequiel-garzon 4y agoYou are correct: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-i-element https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics....
- alwillis 4y agoidiomatic is certainly in the spec [1]: The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose in a manner indicating a different quality of text, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, transliteration, a thought, or a ship name in Western texts. [1]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-i-element https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics....