- From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:31:56 -0400
- To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
Jim Jewett: >>>It might make more sense to just give em a strength attribute >>>which defaults to 1, but can be negative. Orion Adrian / 2004-04-02 20:12: >> I've always liked this idea... mostly because it fixes the incongruity with >> strong. Now you just have one emphasis element that can represent any >> amount of positive or negative emphasis. Mikko Rantalainen: > I second this. Though the "strength" (or whatever the attribute is > called) should definately be *relative*. > The only problem is, how do you make relative strength to work with > CSS? CSS couldn't add the "strength" values of all the element's > ancestors, last time I checked. Why not? Isn't that what it does with fontsize, if you happen to always use relative changes? -jJ
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 14:33:33 UTC