Ben,
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.
That's how I tend to feel about the use of nested ems, strong + em
and so on.
It's very clever, without any doubt. It is however very divergent
from almost all current developer practice (which of course does not
remotely make it incorrect, but possibly harder to get adoption), and
in the case of deeply nested ems (even if we weights to 5 levels we
get thigns like this <em><em><em><em><em><a href="...">tag</em></em></
em></em></em>) perhaps even more so. I also consider this in more
detail in the article so won't.
On the other hand, as tagclouds are most likely to software
generated, this really might not be such an issue.
thanks, I am glad that the article has prompted such interesting
discussion
j
John Allsopp
style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master
blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher
WebPatterns :: http://webpatterns.org
Web Directions Conference :: Sydney September 28-29 :: http://wd06.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
