- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:13:30 +0100
- To: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Nicholas Shanks wrote: > > In my belief this corresponds to the ascending and descending of ordered > lists as defined in CSS2.1 > Whilst I would expect the effect to be additive, without limits, to the internal values, although possibly clamped in the rendered ones, the real problem here is that people are using presentational markup examples. If you mix content which has already had styling resolved to presentational form, you really need to do a manual fixup. If this is really a style sheet implementation of <html:strong>, you need to consider the many discussions that have been held about how to handle deeply nested use of strong. From my recollection, they don't actually come down to getting bolder and bolder. The most common actual suggestion, I think, is to end up cycling through a small number of styles; i.e., in a passage that is all bold, the normal weight font may actually emphasize the text. In CSS you currently have to do that by having strong, strong strong, strong strong strong... etc. selectors. I'm not sure that you can avoid enumerating unless you add algorithmic capabilites to CSS, which, I believe, go well beyond its scope. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 09:12:58 UTC