On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:19 AM, John Allsopp wrote:
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.
I don't really think that's a big deal. We've pushed correct, though
uncommon, use of HTML tags before, e.g. <address>, the class
attribute, and, well, most of microformats. This seems to be no
different. It's part of the microformat process to look to existing
HTML semantics first. All of the alternatives to nesting <em> seem
to be only duplicating the semantics of <em>. I still like Tantek's
approach. The most significant concern seems to be that the default
visuals without CSS are far from ideal, which seems to be a concern
very similar to those raised with <address>. We addressed that by
allowing alternatives while still preferring the basic HTML tag. How
about something like this:
Preferred: <em>, <em><em>, <em><em><em>, <em><em><em><em>
Alternate: <small class="em">, <em><em>, <strong class="em"><em><em>,
<big class="em"><strong class="em"><em><em>
For parsers, either <em> or a class of "em" would increase the
emphasis given to the surrounded tag.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
