W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2007

[whatwg] De-emphasis

From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:53:24 +0100
Message-ID: <20070208205324031125.0ba6b003@empyree.org>
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:09:24 +0000, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> My concern here is whether this is supposed to be an absolute or 
> relative value. Would <em level="3"><em level="-1">this</em></em> 
> result in an emphasis level of 2 (relative) or ?1 (absolute). What 
> would level="+3" mean?

? I'd say: *default is 0*, so you would end up with 2. This is both the 
most intuitive and the easier to implement, calculate, IMHO.

? +3 is really like bolder or smaller: this is a relative value[1]

> <de-em>, <de-emph>, <subdue> or other new element

You meant tag ;-)
This is my belief that, the less elements the better. Negative values 
for de-emphasis is easier to handle: only one element and sums go 
naturally (+1-2=-1).
As I suggested earlier, the tag could be <emph> with <em> and <strong> 
as transitional (and convenient) shortcuts, respectively for <emph 
value="+1"> and <emph value="+2">

And those who love highlighting text coulds use <emph value="+3"> ;-)

> I don't think there's anything that would be suitable. Using <small> 
> would give the wrong impression to HTML authors.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is my default solution, because there is 
nothing closer (and also because it has no other use in a CSS world) 
but it is still a long way from being purely semantic.

For the same reason, I use <tt> (an otherwise candidate for 
deprecation) when I want to insert notes, comments...

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Is it really needed? The idea has come up now and then, granted, but it 
always seemed to me like suggestions to fill some "logical hole" rather than 
a real need

Well, I do use quite a lot. For instance, when sourcing my stuff, for 
sidenotes and one-liners remarks...

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> (I agree by the way that doing it through some level="" attribute is silly. 
We already have nested elements for that purpose and similar structures.)

Please elaborate on this. On www-html, you asked me to cover nesting, 
which I did (or thought I did) by introducing additions. I guess I 
misunderstood what you meant by nesting. So, what it is?

David




===
(rant below)

1. (by the way, apart from compatibility/support, why still use 
"font-size:bold" when there is such a thing as "font-size:bolder"? Oh I 
know: no browser that I know of implement weight completely, even in 
this time of synthesized fonts. Bummer

	1.	Ultra Light (font-weight:100)
	2.	Thin (font-weight:200)
	3.	Light (font-weight:300)
	4.	Normal, Roman, Regular (font-weight:400)
	5.	Medium (font-weight:500)
	6.	Bold (font-weight:600)
	7.	Heavy (font-weight:700)
	8.	Black (font-weight:800)
	9.	Ultra Black / Extra Black (font-weight:900)

-- 
</david_latapie>             U+0F00
http://blog.empyree.org/en (English)
http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Fran?ais)
http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 11:53:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:32 UTC