- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:05:10 +0200 (CEST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On 23 Jun, Orion Adrian wrote:
> Either way, rather than adding stratification, let the amount of
> emphasis for each type be specified by the author through classes and
> language. E.g. a Japanese man (at least in the movies) might pronounce
> strong quickly, forcefully, and quietly; and it would be represented,
> possibly, by smaller text and not larger text.
>
> What we're missing in reality is per-language default stylesheets that
> are culturally aware.
What we are /missing/ is one, or more, elements that can be
interpreted as having certain semantic meaning in regards to emphasis
and stronger emphasis. When those are in place, and we have all agreed
on how to interpret them, then the /user agents/ will render them in
whichever way is most suited to convey that meaning to the user.
The author may certainly include a CSS file to suggest a particular
rendering, but /CSS does not define meaning/.
We /have/ two elements that convey commonly agreed upon meaning: EM
and STRONG. Certainly, we might have many more, depending on how many
levels of emphasis you think exist. But there is ALOT of things we
might have in HTML, to make it possible to write up documents with
richer semantic interpretation.
But that has nothing to do with CSS, and everything to do with HTML.
Unless, of course, we want to say that "CSS is a language that add
semantics to markup". That'd stir the pot a little.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net
+46 708 557 905
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 21:04:15 UTC