On Jan 12, 2007, at 05:25, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Is the effort to get people to use CSS instead of spacer GIFs a bad
idea?
Is the effort to get people to use h1..h6 instead of pb or
pfont a bad idea?
No. In those cases the alternatives are substantially different
technically. Not
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:41:42 +0100, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the effort to get people to use CSS instead of table for layout a
bad idea?
It often is, sadly. When people really, really want a grid layout model
and try to fake it with positioning or floats, the result tends to
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:16:04 +0100, Spartanicus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CSS table layouts share all of the many drawbacks of HTML table layouts,
except for the false semantics (one of the least significant issues
IMO).
I agree, CSS needs something like the XUL flexible box model.
Afaics
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:42, fantasai wrote:
Are you arguing that i should mean emphasis instead of italics?
If so, I disagree...
Almost, except s/emphasis/different from normal paragraph content/ to
dodge the discussion on what constitutes emphasis.
I am arguing that
The introduction of
On Jan 12, 2007, at 5:23 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
...
The introduction of em and strong (circa 1993) has failed to
achieve a semantic improvement over i and b, because prominent
tools such as Dreamweaver, Tidy, IE and Opera as well as simplified
well-intentioned advocacy treat em and strong
On Jan 9, 2007, at 23:29, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
My conclusion is that semantic markup has failed in this case.
Semantic markup hasn't barely been tested in this case. For the most
part, users have been force-fed broken markup by deceptive user
interfaces.
Sure.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 23:29, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think using span with a style attribute is a bad idea in this case.
Italicizing a word or two in a paragraph is not incidental style that
could easily be considered optional.
Surely it /is/
On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 23:29, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
...
strong and b are both primarily used to achieve
bold rendering on the visual media. Regardless of which tags authors
type or which tags their editor shortcuts
I've been reading this discussion and I do not get the point. It looks
like we are discussing about the traditional bold button, but to my mind
we should discuss about the logic behind that button.
First of all I want to state that to my mind Alexey Feldgendler was
absolutely right when he said:
Hi,
From: Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two of the four implementations that the WHATWG cares about interoperate.
Is it worthwhile to disrupt that situation#8212;especially considering
that changes to Trident are the hardest for the WHATWG to induce?
Does the interoperability matter
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:40, fantasai wrote:
That depends, actually, on the language. Browsing the Chinese journal
section of a university East Asian Library, I noticed that the Chinese
journals didn't use normal/italics -- instead they switched the
style of
font between their equivalents of
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Part of the overall test is that such UIs haven't been launched
with success in the last 14 years.
Well the WYSIWIG paradigm has been dominant in user-space. But I have
pointed to alternatives like Lyx and Mellel. Those seem to be successful
at bringing semantic
On Jan 10, 2007, at 14:40, Simon Pieters wrote:
From: Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two of the four implementations that the WHATWG cares about
interoperate. Is it worthwhile to disrupt that
situation#8212;especially considering that changes to Trident
are the hardest for the WHATWG
On Jan 10, 2007, at 13:26, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
The message please use b and i unless you really know what
you're doing, and generate b and i unless your users really
know what they're doing is *not* well-known.
What's the expected payoff if the message is made well-known?
It has
Having come in to this conversation half way, I'd like to give my
opinions. In the following 'default style' means in the UAs style
declarations for all documents of the language.
There should be three emphasis elements:
em Increases emphatic semantics by one level. *No* default
On Jan 11, 2007, at 2:17 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 10, 2007, at 13:26, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
The message please use b and i unless you really know what
you're doing, and generate b and i unless your users really know
what they're doing is *not* well-known.
What's the expected
Hi,
From: Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well... in that case strong needs to be defined as being equivalent to
b and em equivalent to i, and the ability to mark things as being
important or as stress emphasis is lost.
Actually, when I think about it, the ability to express such semantics
On Jan 8, 2007, at 20:21, Simon Pieters wrote:
I think it is no surprise that most UAs will implement this as
emitting em for CTRL+I and stong for CTRL+B, or similar
interfaces that imply that the user actually requested italics or
bold with (to the UA) unknown intended semantics. (IE and
Henri Sivonen wrote:
My conclusion is that semantic markup has failed in this case.
Semantic markup hasn't barely been tested in this case. For the most
part, users have been force-fed broken markup by deceptive user
interfaces. And, for the most part, developers haven't cared much about
On 1/9/07, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My conclusion is that semantic markup has failed in this case. em
and i are both used primarily to achieve italic rendering on the
visual media. strong and b are both primarily used to achieve
bold rendering on the visual media. Regardless of
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:43:09 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Compare with: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1137799947count=1
You know, you're probably right. I'm just not there yet.
Compare with:
Leons Petrazickis inscribed:
A more general question is whether bold or italic are presentational.
Are they any more presentational than capitalization?. Methinks the
assumption that capitalization is semantic while bold and italic are
presentational is a historical accident, not reality.
I
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:20:50 +0100, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of doing that, people just swapped proper in place of
capitalize. The adherents raged. What fools these people be. The
first word of a sentence is not a proper noun. We need to proselytize
more!
I
Hi,
The contenteditable spec says:
Insert, and wrap text in, semantic elements
UAs should offer a way for the user to mark text as
having stress emphasis and as being important, and
may offer the user the ability to mark text and blocks
with other semantics.
I think it
24 matches
Mail list logo
