Dear David, This is imho more a discussion and therefore more targeted to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
There is in fact already a discussion "[XHTML 2.0] emphesis" started there [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Jun/0034.html] and followed by a very long thread [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Jul/thread.html#msg11] . All the messages on the topic: [http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=subjec t&hdr-1-query=%5BXHTML+2.0%5D+emphesis&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type =t&type-index=www-html] All the best, Alexandre http://alexandre.alapetite.net -----Original Message----- From: David Latapie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:39:45 +0200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Hello, A long time ago, I had an idea which may be worthy of notice on this list: strong is really just a supercharged em, semantic-wise. So I suggest: - <em> => <em+1> - <strong> => <em+2> This allows for - a potential <em+3> - abilty to note something as *less important*. For now, I use <small> for this (I use font-size when semantics is not important). A possible <em-1> (here, "-" is "minus") could be interesting. What do you think? -- </david_latapie> http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
