2013/12/2 Nick White <[email protected]> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 01:51:39PM +0200, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > > That is, more or less, the reason why W3C recommends using <em> rather > than > > <i>. Ideally the ''double apostrophe'' in wiki-syntax will insert <em> > (now it > > inserts <i>), and we'll have styling somewhere along these lines: > > > > .script-latn em { > > font-style: italic; > > } > > > > .script-hebr em { > > font-weight: bold; > > } > > > > (Of course, this is just a simplistic suggestion and the actual styling > may be > > different.) > > I know this was just an illustrative example, but I'm curious > whether there's any reason not to use the :lang css construct for > cases like this (rather than e.g. .script-hebr)? > > So you'd set <body lang="hebr">, then use rules like: > :lang(hebr) em { > font-weight: bold; > } > > I'm just checking that there's no good reason not to use this, > because that's what I've been doing with an extension I wrote[0] ;) >
"hebr" is a four-letter ISO 15924 writing system code. Such things are more oriented to writing systems than to languages. There is no standard HTML attribute for a writing system. If all the languages that use the Hebrew script have the same design it is easier to group them this way. That's what Bug 57045 is about. Of course, it's quite possible that some particular languages would have special properties, and for them it's possible to use :lang(he) as you propose, but with a two- or three-letter language code according to the ISO 639-3 language code. > 0. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CharRangeSpan > Curious, I'll take a look. Thanks for the link. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
