W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 1998

RE: Property suggestions

From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 23:18:18 -0400
To: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@jelks.nu>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002a01bdfd6a$9da3f290$01000080@bonezero>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jelks Cabaniss
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 9:37 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Property suggestions
> > I agree the content belongs in the document and I agree that using style
> > sheets for content is just as bad as using scripts for content.
> So you think that CSS2's generated content is bad?  As in:
> 	Q:before { content: open-quote; }
> 	Q:after  { content: close-quote; }

Depends. If the quotes are part of the content (as I think they would be
most of the time), then this should not be used any more than a <PERIOD> tag
should be used in place of one of these. I think that case would be the
norm. I think the construct you describe is only appropriate for quotes that
are there for decorative purposes.

> How else would you specify quote marks for Q's?

IMO, you usually shouldn't. Using the Q element is fine for making documents
more "machine-understandable"; but, for the most part, I don't think it
should be used to apply critical glyphs.


Received on Wednesday, 21 October 1998 23:17:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:48 UTC