On Saturday 04 February 2006 11:59, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Le Samedi 4 Février 2006 11:36, Tobias Toedter a écrit : > > I would like to use the logical markup, i.e. <strong> instead of > > <span>. With <span>, we only provide optical markup, while we provide > > real context with <strong>. This is important when we want to have an > > accessible site, i.e. for handicapped users. > > Do software of impaired users ignore CSS?
No, of course not. That's not what I meant. But if you do the markup by
visual means only (with <span> tags), you don't provide any context
information about the content. The only thing you can achieve with this is
that you have a means of formatting the text. This may look the same in the
browser if you're not impaired. But if you're for example blind and use
some kind of text-to-speech software, it's much easier for the software to
perform a sensible reading when the content is logically structured. An
example would be <h1>Text</h1> versus
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 150%;">Text</span> -- this could
be rendered exactly the same, without any *visible* difference. However,
the second approach loses some context information that the "Text" is in
fact a section heading.
> Can we have <strong class="bold"> instead?
See below.
> > If you want to enable them to select a special markup for
> > those wiki-like formattings, I suggest to use a special class for those
> > tags, like <strong class="wiki">. This way, every author can
> > specifically markup the tags in the wiki, while still offering good
> > accessibility. If the CSS defines no special class "wiki" for <strong>,
> > it's just marked up like the rest of the page.
>
> Hum, I do not really want to make a difference between wiki bold and
> non-wiki bold.
I agree with you, I also don't think that this would be necessary. I just
wanted to provide a possible solution, if you worry about special-casing
the wiki markup.
> Or maybe we should just replace
>
> .bold { } by strong {}
> .italic { } by em { }
>
> and replace <span class="bold"> and <font class="fold"> (etc) by <strong>
> (etc)
>
> That's maybe the cleanest way to do it.
Absolutely. I'm strongly in favour of this approach. I also think that it
should be easily manageable before the next release.
Do you think that those fixes (span and font tags -> strong and em tags)
could be committed on the trunk, or should we open a new branch for that as
well?
Cheers,
--
Tobias
Warning: Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.
pgpe6yvCwuoxh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
