- 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>
> -----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. Braden <http://www.endoframe.com>
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 1998 23:17:32 UTC