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

Re: Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:38:17 +0200 (CEST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <tkrat.e6d918fb4ed33e4d@greytower.net>

On 23 Jun, Orion Adrian wrote:

>>   But that has nothing to do with CSS, and everything to do with HTML.
>>   Unless, of course, we want to say that "CSS is a language that add
>>   semantics to markup". That'd stir the pot a little.
> 
> I'm not suggesting we use CSS to add meaning. I'm saying that EM and
> STRONG add meaning and cover the 90% of cases. HTML tends to cover the
> majority cases with elements and relegates the remaining "10%" to
> elements + class combinations (e.g. <strong class="anger">).

  But it doesn't.

   <strong class="anger">Inconceivable!</strong>

  has structure, content, and a generally agreed upon meaning: the word
  "inconceivable" is strongly emphasised. There is /no meaning added/ by
  the CSS class name.

  None.

  Not unless you define it that way and get everyone and everything
  supposed to interpret same to agree with you. There is no semantics in
  class names.

  Now, this might just be me misunderstanding, but I have seen quite a
  few examples of this idea tossed about. We have to be very clear on
  it: the way document markup languages are set up at the moment, we
  agree upon semantic interpretation of structural elements, and that's
  it.

  CSS doesn't enter into it, nor does attribute values. HTML covers a
  hundred per cent of what it covers - there is nothing added in terms
  of meaning by CSS. We shouldn't suggest that there is, or we'll see
  more of the

   <div class="paragraph">

  or

   <div class="header1">

  fallacies. Those, by the way, are real world examples.


-- 
 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@greytower.net                      http://www.greytower.net
        +46 708 557 905
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 21:37:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:06 GMT