Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
Matthew Paul Thomas skrev:
To allow this on the Web, the CSS font-style property would need to have
not just normal, italic, and oblique values, but also an
italic-inverse value. Browsers should then use this value by default
for any inline element where they currently use italic.
No problem!
i {
font-style: italic;
}
i i {
font-style: normal;
}
/* and to be sure */
i i i {
font-style: italic;
}
i i i i {
font-style: normal;
}
However, on the web nestled em seems to be used mostly to add additional
level of emphasis, for which I think this might not be suitable. And
nestled dfn-tags seem absurd to me.
Lars Gunther
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
On Nov 4, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Keryx Web wrote:
Matthew Paul Thomas skrev:
To allow this on the Web, the CSS font-style property would need to
have not just normal, italic, and oblique values, but also an
italic-inverse value. Browsers should then use this value by
default for any inline element where they currently use italic.
No problem!
i {
font-style: italic;
}
i i {
font-style: normal;
}
...
We're getting off-topic here, but ... That wouldn't deitalicize
citei, emi, icite, idfn, iem, or ivar, when it
should. As the levels of nesting increased, the number of permutations
of these elements would explode. And it's not reasonable to expect any
author who uses someblockelement {font-style: italic;} to remember to
also define someblockelement cite, someblockelement dfn,
someblockelement em, someblockelement i, someblockelement var
{font-style: normal}.
Cheers
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:06:39 -0500, Matthew Paul Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're getting off-topic here, but ... That wouldn't deitalicize
citei, emi, icite, idfn, iem, or ivar, when it
should. As the levels of nesting increased, the number of permutations
of these elements would explode. And it's not reasonable to expect any
author who uses someblockelement {font-style: italic;} to remember to
also define someblockelement cite, someblockelement dfn,
someblockelement em, someblockelement i, someblockelement var
{font-style: normal}.
Going a bit more off-topic, there are people working on solving this
issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007May/0030.html
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
On Oct 30, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
...
Do EM elements accumulate? They are idempotent under the default style
sheet because you cannot make an italic typeface more italic.
In non-Web typography, any text that would be italicized when the
surrounding text is roman is typically printed as roman when the
surrounding text is italic. (For example, academic journals often
feature a mini-biography of each article's author. When the journal's
style is to present the mini-biography in italics, any book title
mentioned therein will usually be in roman.)
To allow this on the Web, the CSS font-style property would need to
have not just normal, italic, and oblique values, but also an
italic-inverse value. Browsers should then use this value by default
for any inline element where they currently use italic.
But do they accumulate in principle? If they do, is the default style
sheet correct with respect to the EM element?
...
Occasionally I've seen an emphasized word inside an emphasized
sentence. And stories for young children sometimes have sentences that
become progressively more emphasized; this is usually indicated by
increasing the font size.
So a more helpful default would be something like:
em {font-style: italic-inverse;}
em em {font-style: bold;}
em em em {font-size: 1.2em;}
Cheers
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
Quoting Eugene T.S. Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: big can't possibly be defined to mean two different things while staying in the same namespace. Well, I suppose it could be based on the context it is placed in, but I think that would get confusing. Hmm, I was under the impression that we have selectors and classes to define elements to have more than 1 meaning..? Not sure what you meant with selectors. The class attribute can't really give meaning either although there are some efforts going on to give you that option. That really sounds suboptimal though. Especially in this situation where you want to use an element both for mathematics and shouting... -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:14:20 -0800, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: big can't possibly be defined to mean two different things while staying in the same namespace. Well, I suppose it could be based on the context it is placed in, but I think that would get confusing. Hmm, I was under the impression that we have selectors and classes to define elements to have more than 1 meaning..? -- Sincerely, and with thanks, Eugene T.S. Wong
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:07:56 -0800, Jasper Bryant-Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can it be called a standard when only one person uses it? I've never thought of a standard as something that required anybody to use it. If we all stopped using ASCII, then it would still be a standard. If I understand correctly, then I abide by #6 at http://opera.answers.com/standard I take it that you disagree? I think the opposite of a standard is no standard. That means if I abide by no standard, then there will be inconsistencies. I hope that I clarified. If anybody wants more details, then just say so. -- Sincerely, and with thanks, Eugene T.S. Wong
Re: [whatwg] BIG Element
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 18:55 -0800, Eugene T.S. Wong wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:07:56 -0800, Jasper Bryant-Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can it be called a standard when only one person uses it? I've never thought of a standard as something that required anybody to use it. If we all stopped using ASCII, then it would still be a standard. If I understand correctly, then I abide by #6 at http://opera.answers.com/standard I take it that you disagree? I think the opposite of a standard is no standard. That means if I abide by no standard, then there will be inconsistencies. I hope that I clarified. If anybody wants more details, then just say so. Yes, I do disagree. There is no consistency (or otherwise) when there is only one person using a particular way of doing things, as there is no-one else to be consistent with. Therefore, I don't believe a method that is only used by one person can be called a standard. This is a bit of a tangent from the original discussion though :) -- Jasper Bryant-Greene General Manager Album Limited 021 708 334 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.album.co.nz GPG Key ID: CCF9E4CC
