W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2006

[XHTML†2.0] Only one emphasis tag

From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:54:30 +0200
Message-Id: <AE6C8509-D293-4C50-8D55-07E13D429437@empyree.org>
Cc: HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org

(Following the suggestion by Karl Dubost <http://lists.w3.org/ 
Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/0034.html> and its implementation by  
Benjamin Hawkes Lewis)


This is a comment for "XHTML 2.0"
8th WD

Extracted from <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/ 

May I please have a tracking of this comment.

About draft generally, but especially <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD- 
xhtml2-20060726/mod-text.html#edef_text_em> and <http://www.w3.org/TR/ 


<em> and <strong> really are just two variations on the same idea,  
emphasis. Two tags could be merged as one. Plus, extending the idea  
would make possible de-emphasisólike parenthesis, whispering...

My suggestion is " <emph property="numerical value" ".

- <emph> is chosen because it is less ambiguous compared to <em>. On  
the other hand, <em> withouth property value set could be a level 1  
<em>, like in previous X/HTML version. That would provide a bit of  
backward compatibility, with minimal ambiguity.

- values could be like this. Please notice I don't really understand  
what role is really meant for
-- <em role="0">    default
-- <em role="+1">   equivalent to em
-- <em role="+2">   equivalent to strong
-- <em role="-1">   less important, may be rendered as font- 
size:smaller or voice-stress:reduced <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3- 
-- and so on

A similar suggestion had been made in June by Jonathan Worent <http:// 

http://blog.empyree.org/   U+0F00
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 12:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:55 UTC