[2010-06-04 09:40] Daniel Stenberg <[email protected]>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> >> Instead of <span class="bold"> use <b> or <strong>.
> >> Instead of <span class="emphasis"> use <i> or <emph>.
> >
> > This may make HTML simpler, but the change would actually degrade the
> > versality. The SPAN elements can be freely manipulated via CSS, whereas the
> > <B> and <I> tags have a distinct meaning.
>
> Yes. That is the exact reasoning I had when I did it that way from the start
In what way would you want to manipulate the tags? \fB means ``bold
face'' and nothing more, hence it should be represented with <b> which
means ``bold face'' too.
I don't see how this flexibility would be needed.
Specifiying different colors and thelike is possible with <b> too.
> > Likewise. It is good that the headings have distinct identifiers from
> > the start. This allows the ability to "embed" the HTML somewhere else
> > and not the interfere with the exixting "H" definitions. Like:
> >
> > h1
> > {
> > /* regular */
> > }
> >
> > h2.nroffsh
> > {
> > /* from roffit */
> > }
> >
> > In this regard I'm inclined to not recommend these changes. Daniel, the
> > author, can comment more.
>
> Being able to include the roffit HTML code embedded in another existing HTML
> page without too much trouble (and of course then subsequently being able to
> modify the look of the roffit HTML parts only from the CSS) has been one of
> my
> goals since day 1 so this isn't anything I want to hamper in any way.
You convinced me on this second point.
meillo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
