- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:07:42 +0000
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote: >> Equally, there's no problem at all achieving what you want by having 2 >> extra em elements surrounding the quotes themselves. (the size >> presumably emphasising the quote mark, or perhaps a span if you don't >> agree that it's emphasis) > > As I said earlier in the thread, I'd rather drop the entire <q> element > than introduce that kind of verbosity. I disagree that there is no problem > here. I think it is quite horrible. It's semantically clean, backwards degradeable, and imposes no burden on implementators, I'm not sure what's horrible about it. Your use case is a very rare one, it's not something I've seen on the web more than about once - it may be because of the difficulty in doing it but 2 extra elements is rather simple, so I can't believe this. > Just because it is content doesn't mean it has to have an element. No of course not, but introducing CSS such as :whatwg-leading-quote and :whatwg-trailing-quote seems like the overly specialised sort of approach that leads to huge bloated unimplementable specs such as CSS 2. Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:07:42 UTC