[2010-06-04 09:40] Daniel Stenberg <dan...@haxx.se> > 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 debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org