- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:18:17 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Jonathan Worent <jworent@yahoo.com>
- Cc: HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
On 26 Jun, Jonathan Worent wrote: > --- "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: >> I'm sure he meant "*visually* indicate/achieve". > > Yes, Patrick you're correct. There seems to have been > some confusion in what I meant. I am suggesting that > we need a way to semantically describe multiple levels > of emphasis in (x)html. It will then be up to the And that I agree with - we need a richer set of structural elements with which to describe a lot of things, among them different types of emphasis. > Whithout CSS <strong class="level2"> and <strong > class="level3"> are treated equally. If I want one With, or without, CSS they /are/ equal. There is no difference in the semantic interpretation of <strong> and <strong>, regardless of which class they are given. You can't make them different by applying CSS, only change their visual or aural appearance. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting we change the current paradigm from associating semantics with elements to associating it with attribute values - which, as someone suggested, XHTML is already attempting to do, then that is a different matter. I wouldn't agree, tho. > longer emphesized differently. I really believe this > needs to be explicit in the markup. Agreed. We need a richer set of elements - OR a complete paradigm shift. It might be tempting to say <span role="html:strong"> or <span role="foo:veryveryverystrongemphasis"> But do we /really/ want to go that way? -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net +46 708 557 905
Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 14:17:08 UTC