Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Feb 9, 2007, at 19:46, Jonathan Worent wrote: There are plenty of elements in the spec right now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have merit. Actually, there are elements that don't have much merit (e.g. samp), but trying to pretend that they don't exist and aren't interoperably presented isn't worth the trouble. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:27:16 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: Actually, there are elements that don't have much merit (e.g. samp) I'm using it faily often. I write tutorial for languages. big is a better example. -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
--- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2007, at 19:46, Jonathan Worent wrote: There are plenty of elements in the spec right now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have merit. Actually, there are elements that don't have much merit (e.g. samp), but trying to pretend that they don't exist and aren't interoperably presented isn't worth the trouble. What I was trying to say is that it will be impossible to predict an elements usage. Using that as a gauge to determine if something will or won't be added to the spec isn't a fair argument. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:58:35 +0100, Mikko Rantalainen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that aside and small are different from de-emphasis (that
would be dem IMHO). However, the dem element wouldn't be that often
used and it would be vital for it to be easily implemented. A new
element with specified semantics and a simple default CSS style would be
a nice choice. An example *implementation* could be a single CSS rule:
dem { opacity: 0.8 }
How hard it would be to implement the behavior David described above?
Take any existing UA as a base.
If you are talking about making a backwards-compatible approach: Very
cumbersome, as MSIE constructs a rather peculiar HTML DOM for elements it
doesn't recognize. Compare this example:
URL:http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Chtml%3E%0D%0A%3Cp%3ESome%20%3Cdem%3Ede-emphasized%3C/dem%3E%20text%3C/p%3E
in MSIE and other browsers:
IE makes two empty elements, whose tag names are 'dem' and '/dem'
respectively. While this may often be of little consequence for a rendered
view and you don't attempt to change the value of CSS display:, it may
wreak havoc in scripting scenarios.
Confusingly enough, if try to create the document tree with scripting,
using something like ...
var p = document.createElement('p')
p.appendChild(document.createTextNode('Some '));
var dem = document.createElement('dem');
dem.appendChild(document.createTextNode('de-emphasized'));
p.appendChild(dem);
document.appendChild(document.createTextNode(' text');
... MSIE will create the correct document tree. Amusing, isn't it?
Note that this is a general problem with all new non-empty elements
introduced in HTML5, they will break any scenario in which the DOM is to
be scripted, or require separate code paths for autocorrecting the DOM in
those browsers.
--
Arve Bersvendsen, Web Applications Developer
Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:58:35 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Please, how do you implement these features with CSS? I hope you're
not suggesting to add a specialized code path to support just
emphasis and de-emphasis.
I believe that aside and small are different from de-emphasis
(that would be dem IMHO). However, the dem element wouldn't be
that often used and it would be vital for it to be easily
implemented. A new element with specified semantics and a simple
default CSS style would be a nice choice. An example *implementation*
could be a single CSS rule:
dem { opacity: 0.8 }
How hard it would be to implement the behavior David described above?
Take any existing UA as a base.
By experience, opacity draws attention instead of the contrary (at
least on small parts of text, which has the most chance to be
de-emphasised).
Yesterday, I had an IM conversation with one of the person implicated
in the conversation. It turned out pretty interesting. I changed my
mind about emph level=#. I still consider it nice implementation,
but I realise now it would not be good for HTML, as it would need a
special rule - would we be creating a new language, I would have asked
again for this, but, since this is not the case, I agree it is better
the forget it.
So, here is how I see it now. We actually have different problems there.
1. em/strong is a gradient
2. we don't have opposite
1 is solved by deleting em or strong and nesting the remaining one
emem or strongstrong (if I understood nesting correctly)
em em {font-weight:bolder}
2 is solved by a dem-like tag (which could be nested too: demdem)
And why do I think that aside and small are different from dem?
Because I think aside (or a footnote) is something you can safely
ignore and is usually orthogonal to the rest of the content. small
is something you usually skip but you must be aware of the content
(e.g. a copyright or license boilerplate) - the key here is that the
content is often repeated but if you have read it *once*, then you
may skip it later.
So, if I understanf you correctly, small is short for important
legalse-like SMALL-print and not just SMALL-text, right?
--
/david_latapie U+0F00
http://blog.empyree.org/en (English)
http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français)
http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
David Latapie wrote: On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:58:35 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote: ignore and is usually orthogonal to the rest of the content. small is something you usually skip but you must be aware of the content (e.g. a copyright or license boilerplate) - the key here is that the content is often repeated but if you have read it *once*, then you may skip it later. So, if I understanf you correctly, small is short for important legalse-like SMALL-print and not just SMALL-text, right? That's pretty much what the current WHATWG spec says: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-small The latest HTML specification of small element (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.1) only says 15.2.1 Font style elements: the TT, I, B, BIG, SMALL, STRIKE, S, and U elements and SMALL: Renders text in a 'small' font. So either small has no semantics at all (and should be dropped) or it has semantics defined by WHATWG (which seems to describe the current usage in the wild). -- Mikko
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
Responding, generally, to this discussion of de-emphasis: In looking for a print analog the only common cases I can think of for de-emphasized text are notes (footnotes, endnotes, etc.) and parenthetical text. HTML 5 already has elements for asides notes. As for parentheses, if the typical web author wants to insert parenthetical text and is writing in a language that uses parentheses, he/she will use parentheses. They're obvious, they're available from the keyboard. If one marked a piece of text as parenthetical using an HTML element, one would quite likely want it to be styled inside parentheses, and we all know how inconsistent CSS- generated content is. Few authors use the q tag, for the same reasons. And I once had an English teacher tell me that if it had to be stuck in parentheses, it probably wasn't worth saying at all -- which seems to me to apply to some of the use cases mentioned in this discussion. I don't know that parentheses have been mentioned in the discussion to this point. The visual styles that have been proposed for de- emphasized text are reduced font size and reduced opacity (sorry if I've missed something). A few people have pointed out that these will actually make text *more* visually obvious, so I made a test page to see: http://alpha.learnnc.org/~dwalbert/misc/demtest.htm There are three pieces of de-emphasized text here: one with font- size: 80%, one with opacity: 0.8, and one with opacity: 0.6. I know where the de-emphasized text is, so it's easy for me to find, but the small-print and 60% opacity examples tend to draw my eye -- the styling gives visual emphasis, in other words. The 80% opacity example is so subtle that I might miss it or assume it was some kind of browser/monitor error. (Were I not using my fancy Cinema Display I probably would overlook it.) Obviously this isn't a test of all the possibilities for visual styling, but it seems to me that any visual style that clearly marks a piece of text is going to make it stand out and, therefore, give it visual emphasis. I would assume, as a reader, that the small text was meant to be de-emphasized -- logically de-emphasized -- because I'd understand the convention the author used, but the mere act of noticing that and having to process it visually and logically will cause me to pay *more* attention to it than to the surrounding text. The 60% opacity text similarly draws my eye, but I would never assume that the author thought it less important than the surrounding text; I'd assume it was a visited link or else some kind of badly designed highlight. I'd propose, then, that inline visual de-emphasis may be impossible. (I'd suspect the same for audio de-emphasis -- would the smart screen reader whisper it? Wouldn't that, too, draw attention?) I could certainly be wrong, but I'd like to see a live example. If it isn't possible to functionally de-emphasize inline text, then having an element for it is a purely philosophical exercise and wouldn't have practical value. _ David Walbert LEARN NC, UNC-Chapel Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
David Walbert wrote: As for parentheses, if the typical web author wants to insert parenthetical text and is writing in a language that uses parentheses, he/she will use parentheses. They're obvious, they're available from the keyboard. If one marked a piece of text as parenthetical using an HTML element, one would quite likely want it to be styled inside parentheses, and we all know how inconsistent CSS-generated content is. Few authors use the q tag, for the same reasons. offtopic One can markup anything. But there are greater incentives for marking up quotations than marking up parenthetical material (because correct quotation punctuation is often ambiguous and/or impossible to type directly into an HTML stream, and because one wants to do things with quotations like retrieve the original source). The ultimate reason few authors use the Q element is that it was poorly specified, above all in that no requirement was laid upon user-agents to make use of its CITE attribute and no mechanism was provided to connect a Q element with a CITE element. This helped contribute to a situation where the most widely used browser, Internet Explorer, has an exceptionally poor implementation of Q. And that guaranteed that few or no WYSIWIG editors have provision for Q and that almost no examples feature it. As a result, the vast majority of authors are blissfully unaware of its existence. Finally, because so much generalization is done about, and so little actual testing done with, screen readers, few devotees of semantic markup properly understand the accessibility implications of using or not using Q, and avoid it because of their misunderstandings. See http://www.benjaminhawkeslewis.com/www/accessibility/q-element for more details. /offtopic -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
As another general comment on this discussion, I will say that I agree with David Walbert's observations that it is impossible to to de-emphasize something. However, I believe that what some means here by de-emphasising something is that they want to *emphasize the unimportance* of what they're saying. To me, de-emphasis is just another kind of emphasis where you state that the reader doesn't really need to know that thing but the author want to say it anyway. Like David, I think the best rendering for de-emphasis would be to use parenthesis, notes, or asides depending on the exact nature of the content. Frankly, I don't think we need to introduce any new element for the general case of emphasizing the pointlessness of something. If an element is introduced however, maybe pointless would be a better name, less abstract and harder to misuse than anything derived from de-emphasis. Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.michelf.com/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
Hello, On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:43:08 -0500, David Walbert wrote: There are three pieces of de-emphasized text here: one with font-size: 80%, one with opacity: 0.8, and one with opacity: 0.6. I know where the de-emphasized text is, so it's easy for me to find, but the small-print and 60% opacity examples tend to draw my eye -- the styling gives visual emphasis, in other words. The 80% opacity example is so subtle that I might miss it or assume it was some kind of browser/monitor error. (Were I not using my fancy Cinema Display I probably would overlook it.) - opacity 0.8: At first, I thought there was a glitch with my screen. - opacity 0.8: I drew mmy attention like a semi-bolded would have - small: It does not cope well inline. I (almost) never use small in a paragraph; I use it for one-liners, e.g. smallsource:/small or smallNo this is a long post, right?/small I'd propose, then, that inline visual de-emphasis may be impossible. // tangent topic: the importance of convention I think de-emphasis as much to do with convention -- in the Western world, the convention is parenthesis. Same goes with small text: convention is that a small text shall be a whole paragraph, not a part of it, and almost always either at the top or (more often) at the end -- because of all of these legal disclaimers It reminds me that in 19th century, Germans favoured blackletter characters over roman ones, finding them easier to read. The same goes for italics, that was first created to look more natural, easier to read... whereas this is quite the contrary today (try reading a whole italicised paragrah). Even today, Europeans favour serif while Americans prefer sans-serif (for body and on paper -- Americans, tell me if I'm wrong here). // end tangent topic (I'd suspect the same for audio de-emphasis -- would the smart screen reader whisper it? Wouldn't that, too, draw attention?) voice-stress:reduced come to my mind. I'll come further by saying that, here, aural is better than screen (or projection, handheld...) since it always work, while the latter requires some conditions (block or inline). The original reason being, IMHO, that we do not do not say parenthesis (like we do not say comma - it holds true for all the puntuation) So I'd say - screen + block = font-size:80% - screen + inline = parenthesis - voice = voice-stress:reduced What do you think? -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On 9 Feb 2007, at 17:19, David Latapie wrote: - small: It does not cope well inline. I (almost) never use small in a paragraph; I use it for one-liners, e.g. smallsource:/small or smallNo this is a long post, right?/small Agreed, when I use small, which these days is just for things like post author and date on my blog, it's *always* wrapped by a p tag and is included only because certain text-based browsers render it in a darker green than body text on a black bg (basically a sort of opacity: 0.5 !). I'd propose, then, that inline visual de-emphasis may be impossible. (I'd suspect the same for audio de-emphasis -- would the smart screen reader whisper it? Wouldn't that, too, draw attention?) voice-stress:reduced come to my mind. I'll come further by saying that, here, aural is better than screen Indeed I was mostly considering marking up an aural origin for de- emphasis rather than a printed origin. I agree that there's not really a precedent in Western print for something like this beyond parentheses (though I can't speak for Arabic or Asian print), but there *is* a clear usage case for transcribing speech. I think the best use case for dem would be (in western typography, again) to wrap around parenthetical statements such as the one in the sentence. However, as the problems with q have demonstrated, it cannot be assured that all user agents would support adding parentheses from Day 1, and as such dem should have NO default visual styling. voice-stress: reduced is fine for aural though. However you could say that it's the aural renderer's responsibility to understand parenthetical content, whether marked up or not, and say it with reduced stress. This leaves de-emphasis as purely a theoretical tag for markup purists and without any tangible benefit for most HTML authors. - Nicholas. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
Jonathan Worent wrote: The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of elements in the spec right now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have merit. No, the argument that no one would use it is important. More elements = more complex spec which is harder to implement /and to use/. Making HTML harder to use is a real cost (compare HTML to e.g. Docbook) which needs to be outweighed by a benefit. As far as I can see, no-one has presented a convincing use case for a deemphasis element - certianly the most common argument has been well we have emphasis so obviously we need deemphasis which is a lousy justification. Unless there is some UA feature that would be enabled by such an element, and some evidence that people would use the element in the correct way in sufficient numbers to make the feature useful, the element should not exist. It is true that several existing HTML elements do not meet this criteria; that is IMHO an unfortunate piece of history that we need not replicate. -- Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end? -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
--- James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonathan Worent wrote: The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of elements in the spec right now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have merit. No, the argument that no one would use it is important. More elements = more complex spec which is harder to implement /and to use/. Making HTML harder to use is a real cost (compare HTML to e.g. Docbook) which needs to be outweighed by a benefit. As far as I can see, no-one has presented a convincing use case for a deemphasis element - certianly the most common argument has been well we have emphasis so obviously we need deemphasis which is a lousy justification. That was brought but a as secondary argument (still a valid point IMHO). My original use case was for transcribing dialog. This was something I was trying to do when I originally purposed it back in Aug. 07. Unless there is some UA feature that would be enabled by such an element, and some evidence that people would use the element in the correct way in sufficient numbers to make the feature useful, the element should not exist. It is true that several existing HTML elements do not meet this criteria; that is IMHO an unfortunate piece of history that we need not replicate. -- Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end? -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396546091
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
Le 2007-02-09 à 14:21, Jonathan Worent a écrit : That was brought but a as secondary argument (still a valid point IMHO). My original use case was for transcribing dialog. This was something I was trying to do when I originally purposed it back in Aug. 07. Can I suggest a whisper element then (or something similar)? I'm still not convinced that it is needed or that it can have a good default rendering, but it'd certainly be more to-the-point than the abstract concept of de-emphasis which can be stretched to dozens of unrelated use-cases. Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.michelf.com/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:09:24 +, Nicholas Shanks wrote: My concern here is whether this is supposed to be an absolute or relative value. Would em level=3em level=-1this/em/em result in an emphasis level of 2 (relative) or −1 (absolute). What would level=+3 mean? • I'd say: *default is 0*, so you would end up with 2. This is both the most intuitive and the easier to implement, calculate, IMHO. • +3 is really like bolder or smaller: this is a relative value[1] de-em, de-emph, subdue or other new element You meant tag ;-) This is my belief that, the less elements the better. Negative values for de-emphasis is easier to handle: only one element and sums go naturally (+1-2=-1). As I suggested earlier, the tag could be emph with em and strong as transitional (and convenient) shortcuts, respectively for emph value=+1 and emph value=+2 And those who love highlighting text coulds use emph value=+3 ;-) I don't think there's anything that would be suitable. Using small would give the wrong impression to HTML authors. I agree wholeheartedly. It is my default solution, because there is nothing closer (and also because it has no other use in a CSS world) but it is still a long way from being purely semantic. For the same reason, I use tt (an otherwise candidate for deprecation) when I want to insert notes, comments... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Is it really needed? The idea has come up now and then, granted, but it always seemed to me like suggestions to fill some logical hole rather than a real need Well, I do use quite a lot. For instance, when sourcing my stuff, for sidenotes and one-liners remarks... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: (I agree by the way that doing it through some level= attribute is silly. We already have nested elements for that purpose and similar structures.) Please elaborate on this. On www-html, you asked me to cover nesting, which I did (or thought I did) by introducing additions. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by nesting. So, what it is? David === (rant below) 1. (by the way, apart from compatibility/support, why still use font-size:bold when there is such a thing as font-size:bolder? Oh I know: no browser that I know of implement weight completely, even in this time of synthesized fonts. Bummer 1. Ultra Light (font-weight:100) 2. Thin (font-weight:200) 3. Light (font-weight:300) 4. Normal, Roman, Regular (font-weight:400) 5. Medium (font-weight:500) 6. Bold (font-weight:600) 7. Heavy (font-weight:700) 8. Black (font-weight:800) 9. Ultra Black / Extra Black (font-weight:900) -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: (I agree by the way that doing it through some level= attribute is silly. We already have nested elements for that purpose and similar structures.) Please elaborate on this. On www-html, you asked me to cover nesting, which I did (or thought I did) by introducing additions. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by nesting. So, what it is? I don't believe in changing the way things have worked for a long time in a drastic way for almost no benefit. It seems silly. It's not backwards compatible, it's not intiutive, it requires way more typing and addresses only a few theoretical use cases. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:05:38 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Please elaborate on this. On www-html, you asked me to cover nesting, which I did (or thought I did) by introducing additions. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by nesting. So, what it is? I don't believe in changing the way things have worked for a long time in a drastic way for almost no benefit. It seems silly. It's not backwards compatible, it's not intiutive, it requires way more typing and addresses only a few theoretical use cases. I addressed the backward-compatibity with em and strong as shorcut for +1 and +2 I agree that the + and minus may be a bad idea; remember I was proposing an idea and am completely open to another way to handle this. The +/- point at a problem with incremental values: bolder, smaller, larger and so on. So this is not a new concern, this is a pretty old one. It just happens that is usually is about presentation, but here we have a case where it is about structure too. As for not being intuitive... Well addition seems pretty intuitive to me, and plus (+)/minus (-) for more/less (important/not important) too Finally, this is not theoretical, except if we consider thousands of sidenotes as marginal You are right about typing, this is long. but anything with a property will be (table summary= is, blockquote cite= is too, let alone span xml:lang=) Oops did I look aggressive, there? You tell me == this could be a small-size remark at the end of a blog post (emph value=-1) -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
David Latapie wrote: Finally, this is not theoretical, except if we consider thousands of sidenotes as marginal This is somewhat tangential to the Great Emphasis Debate, but I just wanted to suggest that, in this new medium of ours, the relationship between main text and note is arguably not so much one of de-emphasis as of hypertext. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:03:04 +, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: David Latapie wrote: Finally, this is not theoretical, except if we consider thousands of sidenotes as marginal This is somewhat tangential to the Great Emphasis Debate, but I just wanted to suggest that, in this new medium of ours, the relationship between main text and note is arguably not so much one of de-emphasis as of hypertext. Mmhh. Now you make me think. aside could be used for de-emphasis (“content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside element”). That would solve much of the Great Emphasis Debate, methinks (they would not be any kind of gradient, but I can live with it). What does anyone think of it, especially fellows looking for de-emphasis? -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Feb 8, 2007, at 21:09, Nicholas Shanks wrote: de-em, de-emph, subdue or other new element What would the default visual presentation be? -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:31:31 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Feb 8, 2007, at 21:09, Nicholas Shanks wrote: de-em, de-emph, subdue or other new element What would the default visual presentation be? I'd suggest font-size:smaller -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
Hi, On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:48:44 +0100, David Latapie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the default visual presentation be? I'd suggest font-size:smaller small already has that default presentation in browsers. Why not reuse small for this purpose than to invent a new element/attribute? Regards, -- Simon Pieters
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:25:06 +0100, Simon Pieters wrote: Hi, On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:48:44 +0100, David Latapie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would the default visual presentation be? I'd suggest font-size:smaller small already has that default presentation in browsers. Why not reuse small for this purpose than to invent a new element/attribute? This is exactly what I'm doing for years. The problem is semantic (see the gauge/meter or m/mark/hi debates). small does not convey any semantic meaning. -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Feb 9, 2007, at 01:40, David Latapie wrote: small does not convey any semantic meaning. In HTML5, as drafted, it does. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
--- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 9, 2007, at 01:40, David Latapie wrote: small does not convey any semantic meaning. In HTML5, as drafted, it does. Yeah and I think it much more small much more accurately describes small print than de-emphasis. And since IMHO both and needed in html it would seem that de-emphasis needs a new element. I suggest dem __ Jonathan Worent __ -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:48:42 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Feb 9, 2007, at 01:40, David Latapie wrote: small does not convey any semantic meaning. In HTML5, as drafted, it does. Are you thinking about that? In this last example, the small element is marked as being important small print. Wich does not mean that the small is less important by itself. -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On 8 Feb 2007, at 22:31, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Feb 8, 2007, at 21:09, Nicholas Shanks wrote: de-em, de-emph, subdue or other new element What would the default visual presentation be? One or more of: none (i.e. same as span: 'inherit everything') opacity: 0.8 font-size: smaller parentheses ::before and ::after (in a text browser, say) - Nicholas. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:18:51 +, Nicholas Shanks wrote: On 8 Feb 2007, at 22:31, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Feb 8, 2007, at 21:09, Nicholas Shanks wrote: de-em, de-emph, subdue or other new element What would the default visual presentation be? One or more of: none (i.e. same as span: 'inherit everything') opacity: 0.8 font-size: smaller parentheses ::before and ::after (in a text browser, say) I'm appeased to see I'm not the only one who thought about generated parentheses (we might have a problem with text browser there -- not sure). I would warn you against opacity. From my experience, it often *draws* attention isntead of the contrary. - Nicholas. -- /david_latapie U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Re: [whatwg] De-emphasis
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:45:39 +0530, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:09:24 +0100, Nicholas Shanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone else have better ideas? Is it really needed? The idea has come up now and then, granted, but it always seemed to me like suggestions to fill some logical hole rather than a real need. I agree with Anne. And saying don't look at this is actually a difficult thing to pull off, so I do not think that the logic actually matches human behaviour, which means this is a recipe for breaking things. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Try Opera 9.1 http://opera.com
