contact at nickshanks.com
Fri Feb 9 10:02:03 PST 2007
On 9 Feb 2007, at 17:19, David Latapie wrote:
> - small: It does not cope well inline. I (almost) never use small in a
> paragraph; I use it for one-liners, e.g. <small>source:</small> or
> <small>No this is a long post, right?</small>
Agreed, when I use small, which these days is just for things like
post author and date on my blog, it's *always* wrapped by a p tag and
is included only because certain text-based browsers render it in a
darker green than body text on a black bg (basically a sort of
opacity: 0.5 !).
>> I'd propose, then, that inline visual de-emphasis may be impossible.
>> (I'd suspect the same for audio de-emphasis -- would the smart screen
>> reader whisper it? Wouldn't that, too, draw attention?)
> "voice-stress:reduced" come to my mind. I'll come further by saying
> that, here, aural is better than screen
Indeed I was mostly considering marking up an aural origin for de-
emphasis rather than a printed origin. I agree that there's not
really a precedent in Western print for something like this beyond
parentheses (though I can't speak for Arabic or Asian print), but
there *is* a clear usage case for transcribing speech.
I think the best use case for <dem> would be (in western typography,
again) to wrap around parenthetical statements such as the one in the
sentence. However, as the problems with <q> have demonstrated, it
cannot be assured that all user agents would support adding
parentheses from Day 1, and as such <dem> should have NO default
visual styling. "voice-stress: reduced" is fine for aural though.
However you could say that it's the aural renderer's responsibility
to understand parenthetical content, whether marked up or not, and
say it with reduced stress.
This leaves de-emphasis as purely a theoretical tag for markup
purists and without any tangible benefit for most HTML authors.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2157 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the whatwg