- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:00:33 +0300 (EEST)
- cc: HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:54:30 +0200, David Latapie <david@empyree.org> wrote: >> -- <em role="0"> default >> -- <em role="+1"> equivalent to em >> -- <em role="+2"> equivalent to strong >> -- <em role="-1"> less important, may be rendered as font-size:smaller > > This proposal doesn't cover nesting. Why not? Isn't the possibility of nesting an immediate consequence of the syntax? Or do you mean that the _meaning_ of nesting is left unspecified? If <em> means emphasis with respect to the environment (or, syntactically, the parent element), then obviously <em role="+1"><em role="+1">foo</em></em> bar would make foo emphasized twice with respect to bar. Whether this would be semantically equivalent to <em role="+2">foo</em> bar might need to be defined. That is, do the role="..." attributes express something that is additive? I must admit that the role="..." stuff looks like a pointless game. Instead of defining an attribute with suggestive or descriptive name, an almost dummy name is used. I think what would really be needed is <b>, <i>, and <small> with new names and more abstract semantics as well as an attribute that lets the author declare a block element as more or less important. But I'm afraid that would be far too practical - useable and implementable. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 14:00:40 UTC