Hi Ryan,
Le 23 oct. 06 à 15:04, Ryan J. Bury a écrit :
True, for many cases - however, in the two extra examples I gave (numbered 1 & 2 in my original email to the list), I think there is sufficient difference in meaning. But if the official recommendation given were to be to use the "cite" tag for these cases, I would be completely happy to do so - just so long as I'm sure that the issue has been at least considered.
For me too, cite is a bit blurry. The way I understood it, it is used as a remplacement for HTML3.0’s AUTHOR, not for citing a work— contrary to what the common font-style:italic default presentation may imply.
Part of the elegance (as I see it) of XHTML2 is that each markup tag is very specific in its meaning, and so when using it, I would much prefer to know for sure that the tag I am using will always be interpreted correctly by readers.
I read a lot of “please, don't make XHTML2 a new DocBook”. I know DocBook only by name, though. I am neither positive nor negative on this question.
(for CSS, see lang:not(en) {font-style:italic} with some upgrades that I suggested some weeks ago, like xml:lang with CSS, :not (current_language) and font-style:reverse)This is a actually a use of the CSS "lang" class I had not considered at all, and does in fact completely solve that problem - thank you for bringing it to my attention!
You’re welcome :) Although, as I stated it between parentheses), it doesn’t completely solve the issue. But as far a structure/XML is, yes it does :)
-- </david_latapie> http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
