Re: CSS and Eccentric Poems.
Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
> The "problem" as I see it is that, even in light of CSS1 implementation,
> there is no tag that has NO other purpose other than applying a style to a
> selection. Styles can only be applied to phrase markup and block elements
> that ALREADY carry a meaning of sorts. When this is content markup, all's
> fine and dandy. If this is actually a tag that indicated rendering (like B
> and I), people get confused.
I can see the problem. HTML, intended to be a content markup language,
already had some presentation markup entities when N******* started
turning it into a presentation language. But we don't have to use any
presentational tags if we prefer not to. Instead of <B> and <I> we
can use <STRONG> and <EM>. If we want to alter the style of the
emphasis, we can use CSS to do so.
I would like to see <B> and <I> used primarily when it is important
(or legal) that something is rendered in bold and italics, and not
highlighted in some other way. For instance, if I were writing
equations, I would like to have my scalar variables in italics and
my vectors in bold, but not emphasised in any other way. If some
user agent running in a colour text environment uses red for <STRONG>
and purple for <EM>, I don't want my variables to be rendered in
The great advantage with style sheets is that we can separate content
and presentation, using HTML only for content markup (This is a heading,
this is a list, ...) and using CSS to define how we want headings and
lists to be rendered.
> What we should have is simply a tag (something like FORMAT or RENDER) which
> only has one attribute: CLASS.
We already have the <DIV> element (for block purposes) and the <SPAN>
element (inside blocks) that mostly or only are there for carrying the
Of course we could use <SPAN CLASS="Bold"> everywhere we until now
have been using <STRONG>--if we really want to limit our audience to
those who have use a CSS-capable browser in a GUI environment.
Carl Johan Berglund <firstname.lastname@example.org>