W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:05:10 +0200 (CEST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <tkrat.fef04af0a1fa692c@greytower.net>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:59 UTC