Gene Falck wrote: > You wrote: >> Why do you use a span with a class when you already >> have the html tags for them? Can't you just tell the >> <sup> and <sub> tags to look the way you wish with >> css instead of making new classes? They are already >> there, and they seem more semantic (maybe not, kinda >> like <b> and <i>, I guess ). Is there something I'm >> missing? > At the time I set things up with span and class I was > disgusted with trying to use the sup and sub tags. No > matter what I tried, the html tags persisted in giving > me increased line heights so that my text which had > some lines without superscripts or subscripts and some > with looked pretty weird. Perhaps there is a good way > to tame the tags but I didn't find it; once I wrote > the sp and sb classed into my style sheet they worked > quite nicely and I never looked back.
Actually, the argument can be and *has been* made that <sup> and <sub> mix presentation with style in much the same way as the aforementioned <b> and <i> pair (and others). I go back and forth on this one. I don't work very frequently with mathematics, but I do know there is quite a bit of difference between 10 to the 5th power (10^5) and 105. While <sup> and <sub> are given default styles by browsers, they *do* also have a contextual meaning not conveyed by a span tag. On the other hand, I can see how they could be problematic to style attractively. Just thought that for once I'd toss out some ambivalence instead of stirring up another CSS Overlords thread. ;-) -- <!-- ! Bill Brown <macnim...@gmail.com> ! Web Developologist, WebDevelopedia.com --> ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
