On 20 Sep 2006, at 10:45, Matthew Levine wrote:
However, I'm not whether I like exploiting nesting order. It feels
a bit hackish, and isn't as semantically unambiguous as Ben's
initial example.
Yeah, I considered EM > STRONG and STRONG > EM as well but as you
say, it's very hackish and in my interpretation of the semantics I
come to one of two conclusions:
* Either EM > STRONG and STRONG > EM are equal, so couldn't represent
different levels
or
* EM > STRONG is semantically invalid as ‘Strong emphasis’ is greater
than ‘Emphasis’. It seems very wrong that EM can be the parent of
another element which describes a larger, bigger application of the
same semantic… unless we were to make EM inherit semantics from the
little known TARDIS element.
Ben_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
