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

RE: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:26:42 -0800
Message-ID: <49C257E2C13F584790B2E302E021B6F91247202E@winse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>

It would be great to see a use case that illustrates the need for this
type of behavior. Please provide a scenario.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:21 AM
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag


John M. Black wrote:
> In principle I
> might argue that the "strength" of a particular element is not
> something that should be defined in html attributes at all.

However, I'd argue that the "strength" in this case influences the 
meaning/content, hence should be part of the document's markup, and not 
rely on styling alone. It would also be a lot more elegant than 
requiring nesting to achieve positive increments, and gives an 
interesting way out for removing <small> (presentational) without the 
need to reinvent another element for this purpose.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re*dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 00:26:14 GMT

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