- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:11:27 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
On 6/23/06, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote: > > 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. I'm not suggesting we use CSS to add meaning. I'm saying that EM and STRONG add meaning and cover the 90% of cases. HTML tends to cover the majority cases with elements and relegates the remaining "10%" to elements + class combinations (e.g. <strong class="anger">). You're really just missing de-emphasis, but you're otherwise fine (at least to me). -- Orion Adrian
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 21:11:37 UTC