> Of course it is funny to look at a committee trying to invent some grand vision for something that was simply a small set of options available on desktops aro

> Of course it is funny to look at a committee trying to invent some grand vision for something that was simply a small set of options available on desktops around 1990. I honestly find it embarrassing rather than funny. "The foundations of the modern web were built by people who couldn't possibly have imagined the importance their inventions would play in the future, and the sheer breadth of applications they would be used for. One of the consequences of the web's convoluted history is that tag names like <i> are historical artifacts that don't make sense in the context of modern semantic elements." Is it really so hard to admit that? Why make up bogus explanations?