On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:05:12 +0530, Øistein E. Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2007, at 9:42AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> "importance" is differen[t] from "emphasis".
>
> This is indeed what the current version of the specification says, but I
honestly
> think this distinction i
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:53:15 +0100, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
> David Latapie écrivit:
>
>> Do you mean than focus is another subset of emphasis?
>
> If you mean whether I think conveys some sort of emphasis, then
> the answer
> is yes.
You answered my question
> I do not argue that a distin
David Latapie écrivit:
> Do you mean than focus is another subset of emphasis?
If you mean whether I think conveys some sort of emphasis, then the answer
is yes.
I do not argue that a distinction between emphasis indicated by the
author and emphasis added afterwards is necessarily a bad idea, t
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:35:12 +0100, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2007, at 9:42AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> "importance" is differen[t] from "emphasis".
>
> This is indeed what the current version of the specification says,
> but I honestly
> think this distinction is too artificial to
On 8 Feb 2007, at 9:42AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> "importance" is differen[t] from "emphasis".
This is indeed what the current version of the specification says, but I
honestly
think this distinction is too artificial to work in practice.
HTML4 clearly defines and as more or less (of) the s
