On 26 Jun, Jonathan Worent wrote:

> --- "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:

>> I'm sure he meant "*visually* indicate/achieve".
>
> Yes, Patrick you're correct. There seems to have been
> some confusion in what I meant. I am suggesting that
> we need a way to semantically describe multiple levels
> of emphasis in (x)html. It will then be up to the

  And that I agree with - we need a richer set of structural elements
  with which to describe a lot of things, among them different types of
  emphasis.



> Whithout CSS <strong class="level2"> and <strong
> class="level3"> are treated equally. If I want one

  With, or without, CSS they /are/ equal. There is no difference in the
  semantic interpretation of <strong> and <strong>, regardless of which
  class they are given. You can't make them different by applying CSS,
  only change their visual or aural appearance.

  If, on the other hand, you are suggesting we change the current
  paradigm from associating semantics with elements to associating it
  with attribute values - which, as someone suggested, XHTML is already
  attempting to do, then that is a different matter.

  I wouldn't agree, tho.



> longer emphesized differently. I really believe this
> needs to be explicit in the markup.

  Agreed. We need a richer set of elements - OR a complete paradigm
  shift. It might be tempting to say

   <span role="html:strong">

  or

   <span role="foo:veryveryverystrongemphasis">

  But do we /really/ want to go that way?

-- 
 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@g...                      http://www.greytower.net 
        +46 708 557 905