forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: more validation suckage..
Date Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:49:39 GMT

Steven Noels wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>>>        <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
>>> Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
>>> is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
>> well, *that's* excessively lame.  what reason could there possibly
>> be for such a restrictive list?  <strong><em> is, as an example, a
>> very common construct..
> I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like 
> trying to bypass semantical markup practices.

I have the same feeling.

> What if a skin author decides <strong> should be translated to <font 
> color="red"> and <em> to <font color="green"> or tweak CSS for that 
> reason.... what is the connotation or the meaning of STRONGLY EMPHASIZED 
> inline text fragments...?

Yes, this is something I'm ignorant about. I read something sometime 
about when to use italic, bold, etc, and somehow these have been 
translated in "strong" and "em".

But hey, what is the real precise meaning of "strong" or "emphasized"?
What does "strong emphasized" mean?
I have the same question.

> I know I'm putting on my robe of semantical markup wannabe guru here, 
> but we should do some thinking before adding infinite levels of tag 
> containment for mostly aesthetical purposes.


Anyone can enlighten me about the *real* meaning of these tags?

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message