RE: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag

I had originally suggested something similar to this back in June 06. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Jun/0034.html) There have also been a few other suggestions regarding this topic. I suggest searching the archive. Most questions you have, have probably alreay been asked and answered.


"Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com> wrote: 
It would be great to see a use case that illustrates the need for this
type of behavior. Please provide a scenario.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:21 AM
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: [XHTML 2.0] Only one emphasis tag


John M. Black wrote:
> In principle I
> might argue that the "strength" of a particular element is not
> something that should be defined in html attributes at all.

However, I'd argue that the "strength" in this case influences the 
meaning/content, hence should be part of the document's markup, and not 
rely on styling alone. It would also be a lot more elegant than 
requiring nesting to achieve positive increments, and gives an 
interesting way out for removing  (presentational) without the 
need to reinvent another element for this purpose.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re*dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________





 
---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.