Re: Five new proposals about CSS

• From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
• Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:47:55 +0100 (BST)
• To: www-style@w3.org
• Message-Id: <200510161447.j9GEltk00848@djwhome.demon.co.uk>

> +#001100, for instance would make the element “greener”. This is  
> especially useful for “graphical chart” consistency. Other  

sRGBA colours are non-linear both in terms of the amount of light power
emitted and in terms of the subjective brightness, so adding a fixed number
to an sRGBA  will produce different subjective and total power effects 
depending on the original value.  The subjective error is less than the
total power error.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

> 
> [(X)HTML] Removing i and b elements
> -----------------------------------
> They can be replaced by:
> 
>      em and strong when it comes to semantics (an important text)
>      font-style:italic font-weight:bolder when it comes to  
> presentation (a different way to show it)

As noted, this is off topic, but is often discussed.  The reasons they still
exist is that there are occasions when being italic is of the essence of the
construct.

Received on Sunday, 16 October 2005 14:48:01 UTC