W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2006

Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

From: Jonathan Worent <jworent@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 07:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20060705140849.64866.qmail@web32214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>



--- Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:

> Jonathan Worent schreef:
> > Thats along the lines of what I was thinking. It
> would
> > be a matter of i18n to best represent this in
> other
> > languages.
> >    level -1 - progressivly decreasing text size
> from
> >               here down.
> >    level  0 - normal
> >    level  1 - italic
> >    level  2 - bold italic
> >    level  3 - bold italic and increasing text size
>  
> >               progressively form here
> > I suppose it would be best to try to match typical
> > voice inflections as closely as possible for aural
> > browsers.
> 
> Ok, in real documents, like books, magazines,
> papers, etc. 

The web is not print. It is a different meduim and
there for must rely on a different set of rules. Mind
you, I do believe much can be taken from print, just
as much should be take elsewhere, such as human
speach.

>How often do 
> they use smaller and larger text to indicate
> different degrees of 
> emphasis than italics and bold?

I didn't pull those suggestions out of a hat, I've
seen each of those used on websites.

> 
> I don’t think are any typographical conventions
> for such differences in 
> expressing emphasis. It is such an obscure thing, I
> really don’t think 
> it has a place in a general document markup language
> for on the web.
> 
> Once you go down that road, you’ll end up with a
> document format like 
> DocBook or worse, having such a mass of elements to
> indicate every 
> possible meaning that you can possibly think of,
> that it’ll become 
> confusing, it’ll become a terrible ordeal for even
> the smartest author 
> to know about all the elements that are available
> and properly mark up 
> his document (tons of people already have trouble
> with the current 
> limited set), and the bulk of the elements available
> will hardly be used 
> at all by document authors.
> 

I believe that as more semantic elements get added
eventually XHTML will be re-modularized (I think thats
the right term) to best describe the elements. Then
authors can pick and choose which modules they want to
use. For instance if many new elements are added that
describe human emotions then they can all be moved to
a new "emotion" module. At least this is the
impression I got from XHTML Modularization.u

> There are already a lot of elements like that, e.g.
> <dfn> and <cite>, 
> but at the least they have a clear and useful
> purpose in serious 
> applications of a document format (generating
> indexes, etc).
> 
> 
> ~Grauw
> 
> -- 
> Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the
> Netherlands.
> Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee;
> www.backbase.com.
> 
> > begin:vcard
> fn:Laurens Holst
> n:Holst;Laurens
> email;internet:lholst@students.cs.uu.nl
> tel;cell:(+31) 06-41765048
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> version:2.1
> end:vcard
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2006 14:09:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT