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 21:15:36 GMT

Steven Noels wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Steven Noels wrote:
>>> I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
>>> trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
>> i'm not going to waste a lot of time on this.  if you're not going to
>> do it, you're not going to do it.  'emphasis' is (or should be) applied
>> to the current style, not the base style.  if you don't like 
>> <strong><em>,
>> you probably don't like <em><strong> either (and i see from the dtd that
>> you don't), and that's certainly even more defensible than the converse.
>> progressive highlighting of portions of citations is a good example of
>> the use of both of these.
>> but whatever.
> "Whatever?"
> Ken: thank you for your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
> Having different opinions on things are good, it requires me to 
> formalize my thinking and defending it. Being a lazy person, I don't 
> often formalize, and assume my belly-feeling is sort-a-OK. Now, I 
> checked my belly-feeling with my brain and it seems like they feel OK 
> with each other. But next time, my belly might have been wrong, and you 
> right :-)

But his need is still there and it's not only his IIUC.
<i><b> </b></i> is a common construct, and till I don't understand
any why there is a need for a third empasis I don't know if we should 
create a <strongem> </strongem> tag or not...
...even if I have the feeling that this request was meant to be used for 
presentation instead of semantics ;-)

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

View raw message