- From: Eve L. Maler <Eve.Maler@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:29:58 -0500
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
Aha! :-) I seem to recall arguing against it while copyediting the spec, partly because brackets are the wrong signal but mostly because the inline style encourages bad formal definition-writing. Eve Tim Bray wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> So does any other mark-up, such as boxes or glossaries or sections >> (as in the IEEE example I sent), but the others leave the in-line text >> as-is (making just the term bold) so that they do not interfere with >> the text surrounding the definition -- the definitions are then collected >> and repeated automatically in a box, glossary, or Definitions section. > > > Speaking as the <blush> inventor of the current typographical usage, I > think Roy's right. -Tim > > > -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 22:29:13 UTC