W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: less than normal importance/emphasis

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:06:14 +0100
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.umb5gon3wxe0ny@widsithpro.local>

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:53:01 +0100, Patrick H. Lauke
<redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
>> Today, we must do this:
>>      <p>You are so <em>mean</em> and, in fact,
>>        very <em>dumb</em>, also.</p>
>>  But with a <neutral> element, we could mark the phrase more naturally,  
>> like this:
>>      <p>You are so <em>mean <neutral>and, in fact,
>>        very</neutral> dumb</em>, also.</p>
>>
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but the <em>first</em> code example feels more  
> natural to <em>me</em>.

No, it makes more sense to me too. It would be interesting to see some
numbers on how often people use em and strong in a way that shows they are
aiming for different levels of emphasis, to see how critical this is.

But we already have the ability to add (progressively more still?)
emphasis, and we can mark things as asides. Having two different ways of
saying stuff is normal (a special element/attribute, or just closing off
the emphasis and reopening it) seems a bit of overkill to me.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
      je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 02:07:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC