[dokuwiki] Re: stricter XHTML

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 09:05:49PM +0100, Anika Henke wrote:
> I don't know if we should go *all* of the next steps to full XHTML 
> Strict compliance. All the steps I've done so far, do not hurt. But 
> going further could ... So, I would like to know: What does the list 
> think about Transitional vs. Strict? I would like to know your opinion 
> in mainly the following subjects:

In general I would say Strict is better. Just a feeling, but I think
there are no "real" problems that have to do with Strict versus
Transitional.

That aside, you do an awesome job! Kudos! :-)

> - The <u> tag: If we should go for XHTML Strict (which no-one has yet 
> decided!), abandoning underlinings would be the hardest to convince 
> people about. Most people feel they need to be able to underline text 
> ... So taking this feature completely away seems impossible.

"Underlining" is physical markup, while "emphasizing" is logical markup.

One may emphasize a word by making it green, CAPS or by underlining it,
but one can hardly underline a word by making it green.

> *If* we did Strict, I would recommend not just to replace <u> by 
> something like <span class="u">, but by <em class="u"> and style it like 
> <u>, as people usually underline text when they want to emphasize things!?

That sounds very good!

"em" is usually marked up by italics, "strong" by bold face, so
I wanted to propose to replace <u> with <em class="some_synonym_for_em">, 
but the best synonym the thesaurus lists for that purpose is
"underline", go figure %-/ [1]

On the other side: we are not here to pamper the users, so class="u" or
class="underline" is fine, I guess (-:

bye!hop

  [1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=emphasize

-- 
DokuWiki mailing list - more info at
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:mailinglist

Other related posts: