- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:54:30 +0200
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
- Cc: HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
(Following the suggestion by Karl Dubost <http://lists.w3.org/ Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/0034.html> and its implementation by Benjamin Hawkes Lewis) Hi, This is a comment for "XHTML 2.0" <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/> 2006-07-26 8th WD Extracted from <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/ 0035.html> May I please have a tracking of this comment. About draft generally, but especially <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD- xhtml2-20060726/mod-text.html#edef_text_em> and <http://www.w3.org/TR/ 2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/mod-text.html#edef_text_strong> =-=-=-=-= <em> and <strong> really are just two variations on the same idea, emphasis. Two tags could be merged as one. Plus, extending the idea would make possible de-emphasislike parenthesis, whispering... My suggestion is " <emph property="numerical value" ". - <emph> is chosen because it is less ambiguous compared to <em>. On the other hand, <em> withouth property value set could be a level 1 <em>, like in previous X/HTML version. That would provide a bit of backward compatibility, with minimal ambiguity. - values could be like this. Please notice I don't really understand what role is really meant for -- <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 or voice-stress:reduced <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3- speech/#voice-stress> -- and so on A similar suggestion had been made in June by Jonathan Worent <http:// lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/0036.html> -- </david_latapie> http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 12:54:44 UTC