W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2007

Re: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag

From: John M. Black <johnmblack@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:21:10 -0500
Message-ID: <a2f56a2e0701200721m27eaaa66ia6a7435325438bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

> > 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.
>
> Do you mean emphasis inside an emphasis? I suggest *addition*
>
> "Animals (for instance dogs, like _mine_) do it"


Maybe I'm just naive, but isn't this kind of thing better accomplished
by writing the nesting concept into your stylesheet?  In principle I
might argue that the "strength" of a particular element is not
something that should be defined in html attributes at all.  Your
above example can be accomplished by one single style:
    em { font-size: 110%; }
Hence the nesting of tags would make the 110% compound as you go in,
and reduce as you went back out.  So there would be no need for any
structural solution at all.

Sorry to interrupt the flow here with css talk, but I think the
direction was starting to go presentation.

-John
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2007 23:43:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT