- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:34:13 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
Hello, This is a very great message I'm happy to comment on. Le 23 sept. 06 à 16:55, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis a écrit : > What's more, I would very much appreciate a list of web content where > XHTML 2.0 would *not* be suitable markup. I second you on this one. > Too many components seem to be doing the same thing: I agree with you on points #1 and #2. As for point #3, I'm thinking about something akin to a generic <em> with a "property="numerical value"" denoting particular importance. <em role="0"> default <em role="+1"> equivalent to em <em role="+2"> equivalent to strong <em role="-1"> less important, may be rendered a font-size:smaller, for instance. This is my personal use of the <small> tag, for a one- liner. as for "role", the term may not be correct (I'm not much familiar with XHTML 2 yet), but I hope you get the point. As for point #4, that I only partially understood, wasn't there supposed to be only <object> for embedding everything? What is the rationale for going back to the lesser solution of several embedding tags? > specifically for software documentation (which seems to be the use-case > for <samp> and friends)? I use samp for my examples, even out of documentation: “When something bad happens to me (<samp>missing the bus, missing an opportunity…</samp>)”. I see no reason <samp></samp> should be limited to documentation (although I recognize it is its most frequent use). The same goes with <code>code</code>, that I also use when writing about linguistics; after all, this is code too! To enjoy/like/love (French) J'aime Tu aime<code>s</code> Il aime Nous aim<code>ons</code> Vous aime<code>z</code> Ils aime<code>nt</code> Don't let XHTML 2.0 becomes the new HTML 3.0 ! -- </david_latapie> http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 10:13:06 UTC