- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:10:59 -0800 (PST)
- To: Simon Jessey <simon@jessey.net>
- Cc: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Simon Jessey wrote: > > If that is the case, perhaps we should have <shout>, <scream>, <whisper>, > <moan> and similar elements, eh? Yes, indeed. However, HTML is generally intended to be a simple language. If your semantic needs are this detailed, you may wish to look at DocBook, which is significantly more fine grained. > I still think that we are talking about how emphasis should be > presented, which seems to fall within the auspices of CSS. CSS is concerned with aspects such as font size and boldness, or, in the case of speech media, volume and pitch. > Do you think <em strength="shout"></em> is better than <em > style="strength: shout"></em> then? Yes, very much so. The main indicator is that you are trying to merge the two aspects (<em> and the strength factor) into the same layer (the markup). That is almost always an indicator that the information is semantic. The style information can always be split from the markup, because it is not part of it. (This is one of the many reasons [1] that the style attribute itself is unnecessary.) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jan/0277.html -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 21:10:54 UTC