- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:18:44 +0200
- To: ryan@rjbsoftware.co.uk
- Cc: "www-html-editor" <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Hi Ryan,
Le 23 oct. 06 à 15:04, Ryan J. Bury a écrit :
> True, for many cases - however, in the two extra examples I gave
> (numbered 1 & 2 in my original email to the list), I think there is
> sufficient difference in meaning. But if the official
> recommendation given were to be to use the "cite" tag for these
> cases, I would be completely happy to do so - just so long as I'm
> sure that the issue has been at least considered.
For me too, cite is a bit blurry. The way I understood it, it is used
as a remplacement for HTML3.0’s AUTHOR, not for citing a work—
contrary to what the common font-style:italic default presentation
may imply.
> Part of the elegance (as I see it) of XHTML2 is that each markup
> tag is very specific in its meaning, and so when using it, I would
> much prefer to know for sure that the tag I am using will always be
> interpreted correctly by readers.
I read a lot of “please, don't make XHTML2 a new DocBook”. I know
DocBook only by name, though. I am neither positive nor negative on
this question.
>> (for CSS, see lang:not(en) {font-style:italic} with some upgrades
>> that I suggested some weeks ago, like xml:lang with CSS, :not
>> (current_language) and font-style:reverse)
>
> This is a actually a use of the CSS "lang" class I had not
> considered at all, and does in fact completely solve that problem -
> thank you for bringing it to my attention!
You’re welcome :) Although, as I stated it between parentheses), it
doesn’t completely solve the issue. But as far a structure/XML is,
yes it does :)
--
</david_latapie>
http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
Received on Monday, 23 October 2006 15:19:16 UTC