W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2004

RE: opposite of em

From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:31:56 -0400
Message-ID: <B8CDFB11BB44D411B8E600508BDF076C1E96D43D@USAHM010.amer.corp.eds.com>
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
>> 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?

Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 14:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:08 UTC