david at empyree.org
Thu Feb 8 13:51:03 PST 2007
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:05:38 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Please elaborate on this. On www-html, you asked me to cover nesting,
>> which I did (or thought I did) by introducing additions. I guess I
>> misunderstood what you meant by nesting. So, what it is?
> I don't believe in changing the way things have worked for a long
> time in a drastic way for almost no benefit. It seems silly. It's not
> backwards compatible, it's not intiutive, it requires way more typing
> and addresses only a few theoretical use cases.
I addressed the backward-compatibity with <em> and <strong> as shorcut
for +1 and +2
I agree that the + and minus may be a bad idea; remember I was
proposing an idea and am completely open to another way to handle this.
The +/- point at a problem with incremental values: bolder, smaller,
larger and so on. So this is not a new concern, this is a pretty old
one. It just happens that is usually is about presentation, but here we
have a case where it is about structure too.
As for not being intuitive... Well addition seems pretty intuitive to
me, and "plus" (+)/"minus" (-) for "more"/"less" (important/not
Finally, this is not theoretical, except if we consider thousands of
sidenotes as marginal
You are right about typing, this is long. but anything with a property
will be (<table summary=""> is, <blockquote cite=""> is too, let alone
Oops did I look aggressive, there? You tell me <== this could be a
small-size remark at the end of a blog post (<emph value="-1">)
More information about the whatwg