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

Re: <strong> is not equivalent to <em> <em>

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 21:25:04 +0200
To: www-html@w3.org
cc: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <b02000001-1026-1A7994DE831D11D7A42E0030657B83E8@[]>

Hash: SHA1

John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu> wrote:

>Nesting em elements accomplishes the same flexibility with one element,
>much like the section and h elements can replace and extend h1-h6.

Well, if you were to change RANK to YES in the FEATURES section of the SGML
Declaration, you would effectively get one "h" element with six possible
RANKs. Similarly, you could make "em" a RANKed element with, say, 6
possible RANKs.

Since the RANK becomes part of the effective Generic Identifier of the
element -- and CSS Selectors operate on the Generic Identifier -- you would
end up with one element group with 6 possible levels of emphasis and the
possibility to style each differently from CSS.

Also, since RANK is an impliable property, you would need to explicitly add
the RANK suffix only when it is not possible to imply it from context; so
you can choose whether to use "<em><em>foo</></>"[0] or "<em2>foo</>".

[0] - Since "em1" can only appear at the root level, and "em2-6" can
      only appear inside an "em1", those are both unambigiously

Then again, that presupposes that you a) acknowledge the existance of SGML
and b) modify the SGML Declaration for XML (yeah, right)... :-)

- -- 
Now Playing "Ne Me Quitte Pas (If You Go Away)" by "Nina Simone"
 from the album "Feeling Good - The Very Best Of".

Version: PGP SDK 3.0

Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 15:25:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:03 UTC