Hello,

This is a very great message I'm happy to comment on.

Le 23 sept. 06 à 16:55, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis a écrit :

> What's more, I would very much appreciate a list of web content where  
> XHTML 2.0 would *not* be suitable markup.

I second you on this one.

> Too many components seem to be doing the same thing:

I agree with you on points #1 and #2.

As for point #3, I'm thinking about something akin to a generic <em>
with a "property="numerical value"" denoting particular importance.
<em role="0">    default
<em role="+1">   equivalent to em
<em role="+2">   equivalent to strong
<em role="-1">   less important, may be rendered a font-size:smaller,
for instance. This is my personal use of the <small> tag, for a one-
liner.

as for "role", the term may not be correct (I'm not much familiar
with XHTML 2 yet), but I hope you get the point.

As for point #4, that I only partially understood, wasn't there
supposed to be only <object> for embedding everything? What is the
rationale for going back to the lesser solution of several embedding
tags?

> specifically for software documentation (which seems to be the use-case
> for <samp> and friends)?

I use samp for my examples, even out of documentation: ?When
something bad happens to me (<samp>missing the bus, missing an
opportunity?</samp>)?. I see no reason <samp></samp> should be
limited to documentation (although I recognize it is its most
frequent use).
The same goes with <code>code</code>, that I also use when writing
about linguistics; after all, this is code too!

To enjoy/like/love (French)

J'aime
Tu aime<code>s</code>
Il aime
Nous aim<code>ons</code>
Vous aime<code>z</code>
Ils aime<code>nt</code>



Don't let XHTML 2.0 becomes the new HTML 3.0 !
-- 
</david_latapie>
http://blog.empyree.org/    U+0F00