- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:34:57 +0200
- To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Brad Kemper: > On May 11, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Christoph Päper wrote: > >> It is not as unrealistic, though, that there is a quite limited set of semantic or stylistic keywords that pretty much every plain text markup language could easily be mapped to. > > How do you figure? They pretty much all already have a mapping to (a subset) of HTML, although sometimes the ‘i’/‘em’ and ‘b’/‘strong’ distinction is kind of muddy. > It is no easier for an implementor to map a pseudo-element to a chunk of markup than to map an element name to a chunk of markup. Right, that’s why I said that this decision would be secondary. I just prefer pseudo classes, not least for ‘:link’ already is one. The selector ‘:emphasis’ could not only apply to Markdown’s ‘_’ but also to HTML’s ‘em’ element type, besides the usual selector ‘em’. I don’t see that happening for a selector called ‘emphasis’.
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 16:35:26 UTC