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

Re: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:33:12 -0500
Message-ID: <abd6c8010701220533q3d6fe7ex27fa2ade8d74ab13@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

It is and the other issue is that emphasis as a category is broad and
doesn't simply exist on a continuum. There are different types of
emphasis. The strong and em elements take care of almost all the needs
we have for emphasis as long as you nest them where appropriate. What
concept is missing is de-emphasis.

On 1/20/07, John M. Black <johnmblack@gmail.com> 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.
> >
> > 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
>
>
>


-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 13:33:19 GMT

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