Re: Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

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