Return-Path: 
 <forrest-dev-return-3735-apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 38941 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2002 15:54:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:forrest-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 38931 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2002 15:54:02 -0000
Received: from s5.servlets.net (209.221.135.8)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Nov 2002 15:54:02 -0000
Received: from TILLER (adsl-64-173-57-78.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
 [64.173.57.78])
	by s5.servlets.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA26388;
	Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:54:03 -0800
From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@koberg.com>
To: <forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>, <nicolaken@apache.org>
Subject: RE: more validation suckage..
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:52:06 -0800
Message-ID: <ADECJLDNBFNBOJBLKCMOKEAIDHAA.rob@koberg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To: <3DDD0093.10208@apache.org>
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Hi Ken,

strong = strong emphasis
em = emphasis

-Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:50 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: more validation suckage..
> 
> 
> 
> 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>
> >>> http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> +1
> 
> Anyone can enlighten me about the *real* meaning of these tags?
> 
> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>