W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Font Style Elements

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:10:59 -0800 (PST)
To: Simon Jessey <simon@jessey.net>
Cc: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0302271803120.12111-100000@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Simon Jessey wrote:
>
> If that is the case, perhaps we should have <shout>, <scream>, <whisper>,
> <moan> and similar elements, eh?

Yes, indeed. However, HTML is generally intended to be a simple language.
If your semantic needs are this detailed, you may wish to look at DocBook,
which is significantly more fine grained.


> I still think that we are talking about how emphasis should be
> presented, which seems to fall within the auspices of CSS.

CSS is concerned with aspects such as font size and boldness, or, in the
case of speech media, volume and pitch.


> Do you think <em strength="shout"></em> is better than <em
> style="strength: shout"></em> then?

Yes, very much so. The main indicator is that you are trying to merge the
two aspects (<em> and the strength factor) into the same layer (the
markup). That is almost always an indicator that the information is
semantic. The style information can always be split from the markup,
because it is not part of it. (This is one of the many reasons [1] that
the style attribute itself is unnecessary.)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jan/0277.html

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 21:10:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT