You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2002/11/19 05:31:56 UTC
more validation suckage..
now wth is *this* about?
/home/coar/apache-incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/glossary.xml:29:63: The content of element type "strong" must match "(code)".
/home/coar/apache-incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/glossary.xml:34:51: The content of element type "strong" must match "(code)".
and similar weird messages.
the first line in question is:
<dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
so what's wrong with that?
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Miles Elam <mi...@geekspeak.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> > But his need is still there and it's not only his IIUC. <i><b>
> > </b></i> is a common construct, and till I don't understand if any
> > why there is a need for a third empasis I don't know if we should
> > create a <strongem> </strongem> tag or not...
I agree that bold and italic (<b> and <i>) bleed into layout way too
much, but what about nesting <em> tags? DocBook and variants have an
<emphasis /> tag which allows other <emphasis /> tags as children so
there is precedent in widely available semantic markup.
Personally I think the practice is odious in general simply because it
encourages literary laziness in many cases: using bold and italics
instead of using appropriately forceful phrasing. However people are
people and really like their bold and italicized text. The "right"
thing is rarely the popular thing.
Why not leave it to the stylesheets?
XSLT:
Prevent nesting: <xsl:template
match="em|b|i|u//em|b|i|u"><xsl:apply-templates /><xsl:template>
Convert the tags: <xsl:template match="b|i|u"><em><xsl:apply-templates
/></em><xsl:template>
Remove the tags: <xsl:template match="em|b|i|u"><xsl:apply-templates
/><xsl:template>
These can be enabled/disabled easily with <xsl:import /> or <xsl:include
/> to a separate file.
CSS:
em {
font-style: italic;
}
em em {
font-weight: bold;
}
em em em {
text-decoration: underline;
}
Enabled/disabled by @import urls. A documentation administrator could
simply remove the styling from any layout markup, make it uniform across
all pages, or let it stand as is.
Then it's up to the documentation manager whether they want to encourage
the behavior by using skins that accentuate the markup or discourage it
by downplaying the markup rendering.
Choices given, but I would be in favor of ommiting them by default.
Then when people go to find out how to put their bold and italics back
in, they can see a page that describes why it's generally a bad idea
anyway. And in using the <em> tag, you can enforce some uniformity in
the docs with regard to the visual representation of emphasis.
My $0.02
- Miles
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> But his need is still there and it's not only his IIUC. <i><b>
> </b></i> is a common construct, and till I don't understand if any
> why there is a need for a third empasis I don't know if we should
> create a <strongem> </strongem> tag or not...
I would prefer calling it <shout> or <yell>
or using the Dutch way of 'increasing' things:
<em>blabla <emmer>foo baa <emst>baaaaz</emst> flow</emmer> foofoo</em>
Kidding aside, I'll try & review things when time allows. There might be
other inline element containment issues which we haven't encountered yet.
> ...even if I have the feeling that this request was meant to be used
> for presentation instead of semantics ;-)
Yep - hence my unwillingness.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> Steven Noels wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
>>> trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
>>
>>
>>
>> i'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. if you're not going to
>> do it, you're not going to do it. 'emphasis' is (or should be) applied
>> to the current style, not the base style. if you don't like
>> <strong><em>,
>> you probably don't like <em><strong> either (and i see from the dtd that
>> you don't), and that's certainly even more defensible than the converse.
>>
>> progressive highlighting of portions of citations is a good example of
>> the use of both of these.
>>
>> but whatever.
>
>
> "Whatever?"
>
> Ken: thank you for your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
>
> Having different opinions on things are good, it requires me to
> formalize my thinking and defending it. Being a lazy person, I don't
> often formalize, and assume my belly-feeling is sort-a-OK. Now, I
> checked my belly-feeling with my brain and it seems like they feel OK
> with each other. But next time, my belly might have been wrong, and you
> right :-)
But his need is still there and it's not only his IIUC.
<i><b> </b></i> is a common construct, and till I don't understand if
any why there is a need for a third empasis I don't know if we should
create a <strongem> </strongem> tag or not...
...even if I have the feeling that this request was meant to be used for
presentation instead of semantics ;-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
>
>>I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
>>trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
>
>
> i'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. if you're not going to
> do it, you're not going to do it. 'emphasis' is (or should be) applied
> to the current style, not the base style. if you don't like <strong><em>,
> you probably don't like <em><strong> either (and i see from the dtd that
> you don't), and that's certainly even more defensible than the converse.
>
> progressive highlighting of portions of citations is a good example of
> the use of both of these.
>
> but whatever.
"Whatever?"
Ken: thank you for your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
Having different opinions on things are good, it requires me to
formalize my thinking and defending it. Being a lazy person, I don't
often formalize, and assume my belly-feeling is sort-a-OK. Now, I
checked my belly-feeling with my brain and it seems like they feel OK
with each other. But next time, my belly might have been wrong, and you
right :-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Steven Noels wrote:
>
> I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
> trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
i'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. if you're not going to
do it, you're not going to do it. 'emphasis' is (or should be) applied
to the current style, not the base style. if you don't like <strong><em>,
you probably don't like <em><strong> either (and i see from the dtd that
you don't), and that's certainly even more defensible than the converse.
progressive highlighting of portions of citations is a good example of
the use of both of these.
but whatever.
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Carlos Araya <ca...@cvc.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
As far as I remember:
<b>, <i>, <u> and related tags were developed as physical styles to
support presentation markup.
<em> and <strong> were developed as semantic markup, where the text
is emphasized and where the text is displayed in a strong typeface.
It doesn't explicitly say what the presentation of the markup should
be, that's left to the user agent
Where possible I would suggest using <em> and <strong> as that would
allow people to define what emphasis and strong typed text are.
As far as the content model for strong, it should allow all the
inline content that a pragraph does except other inline styles. While
it would be nice to remove all physical markup tags, they are needed
for backwards compatibility and graceful degradation.
- - --
Carlos E. Araiya
WebCT Administrator - Trainer
California Virtual Campus, Region 1
C/O De Anza College
21250 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
(p) 408 257 0482 (f) 408 255 4406
<icq> 5140783 <aim>carlosed1974
web (work): http://www.cvc1.org
web (personal): http://silverwolf-net.net/
Sig:
(7) It is always something
(7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all
three).
from RFC 1925: The Twelve Networking Truths
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPd0JrMCcDbA6pDGqEQI6MwCg48WG7ciX3HTqdb6mHT/tcDX4G3sAnj3S
nJz5RVoUDfvGp0/98N5oEqgq
=gBtr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: more validation suckage..
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Sure, that is the way the that browsers render it by default. But you could make
'strong emphasis' or 'emphasis' look however you want. Forrest just needs to to
worry about the resulting HTML structure.
I have modified my thinking on the bones/skin issue. I think this is how it is:
XSL = bones
(X)HTML = skeleton
CSS = skin
XML is like the food/drink you take in to produce an end result :)
best,
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:03 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: more validation suckage..
>
>
>
>
> Robert Koberg wrote:
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > strong = strong emphasis
> > em = emphasis
>
> Then where does the strong strong emphasis fit in?
> Is the strong=bold and em=italic we use now correct?
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Robert Koberg wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> strong = strong emphasis
> em = emphasis
Then where does the strong strong emphasis fit in?
Is the strong=bold and em=italic we use now correct?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: more validation suckage..
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi Ken,
strong = strong emphasis
em = emphasis
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:50 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: more validation suckage..
>
>
>
> Steven Noels wrote:
> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> >> David Crossley wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
> >>> is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
> >>> http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
> >>
> >> well, *that's* excessively lame. what reason could there possibly
> >> be for such a restrictive list? <strong><em> is, as an example, a
> >> very common construct..
> >
> > I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
> > trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
>
> I have the same feeling.
>
> > What if a skin author decides <strong> should be translated to <font
> > color="red"> and <em> to <font color="green"> or tweak CSS for that
> > reason.... what is the connotation or the meaning of STRONGLY EMPHASIZED
> > inline text fragments...?
>
> Yes, this is something I'm ignorant about. I read something sometime
> about when to use italic, bold, etc, and somehow these have been
> translated in "strong" and "em".
>
> But hey, what is the real precise meaning of "strong" or "emphasized"?
> What does "strong emphasized" mean?
> I have the same question.
>
> > I know I'm putting on my robe of semantical markup wannabe guru here,
> > but we should do some thinking before adding infinite levels of tag
> > containment for mostly aesthetical purposes.
>
> +1
>
> Anyone can enlighten me about the *real* meaning of these tags?
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
>>>
>>>
>>> Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
>>> is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
>>> http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
>>
>> well, *that's* excessively lame. what reason could there possibly
>> be for such a restrictive list? <strong><em> is, as an example, a
>> very common construct..
>
> I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
> trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
I have the same feeling.
> What if a skin author decides <strong> should be translated to <font
> color="red"> and <em> to <font color="green"> or tweak CSS for that
> reason.... what is the connotation or the meaning of STRONGLY EMPHASIZED
> inline text fragments...?
Yes, this is something I'm ignorant about. I read something sometime
about when to use italic, bold, etc, and somehow these have been
translated in "strong" and "em".
But hey, what is the real precise meaning of "strong" or "emphasized"?
What does "strong emphasized" mean?
I have the same question.
> I know I'm putting on my robe of semantical markup wannabe guru here,
> but we should do some thinking before adding infinite levels of tag
> containment for mostly aesthetical purposes.
+1
Anyone can enlighten me about the *real* meaning of these tags?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>>> <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
>>
>>Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
>>is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
>>http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
>
>
> well, *that's* excessively lame. what reason could there possibly
> be for such a restrictive list? <strong><em> is, as an example, a
> very common construct..
I'm not necessarily OK with that, since it smells pretty much like
trying to bypass semantical markup practices.
What if a skin author decides <strong> should be translated to <font
color="red"> and <em> to <font color="green"> or tweak CSS for that
reason.... what is the connotation or the meaning of STRONGLY EMPHASIZED
inline text fragments...?
I know I'm putting on my robe of semantical markup wannabe guru here,
but we should do some thinking before adding infinite levels of tag
containment for mostly aesthetical purposes.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103539/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
RE: more validation suckage..
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi Rodent,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:40 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: more validation suckage..
>
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > >
> > > <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
> >
> > Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
> > is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
> > http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
>
> well, *that's* excessively lame. what reason could there possibly
> be for such a restrictive list? <strong><em> is, as an example, a
> very common construct..
>
I think you should do something like:
<div class="whatsHappening">
...
<dt id="ApacheCon">ApacheCon</dt>
....
</div>
then in your CSS:
dt {
font-weight:bold
font-style:italic
}
or if you have other DTs that need to be styled differently:
.whatsHappening dt {
font-weight:bold
font-style:italic
}
Lightens your page and lets you change things later, easily, without
regenerating the site.
best,
-Rob
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
David Crossley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> > <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
>
> Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
> is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
> http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
well, *that's* excessively lame. what reason could there possibly
be for such a restrictive list? <strong><em> is, as an example, a
very common construct..
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 15:31, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> now wth is *this* about?
>
> /home/coar/apache-incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/glossary.xml:29:63: The content of element type "strong" must match "(code)".
> /home/coar/apache-incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/glossary.xml:34:51: The content of element type "strong" must match "(code)".
>
> and similar weird messages.
>
> the first line in question is:
>
> <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
>
> so what's wrong with that?
Easy, the only child element that is allowed inside <strong>
is <code>, i.e definitely not <anchor>
http://xml.apache.org/forrest/document-v11.dtdx.html#strong
How to achieve the result that you want, i do not know.
--David
Re: more validation suckage..
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:31:56PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> now wth is *this* about?
>
> /home/coar/apache-incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/glossary.xml:29:63:
> The content of element type "strong" must match "(code)".
> /home/coar/apache-incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/glossary.xml:34:51:
> The content of element type "strong" must match "(code)".
>
> and similar weird messages.
>
> the first line in question is:
>
> <dt><strong><anchor id="ApacheCon"/>ApacheCon</strong></dt>
>
> so what's wrong with that?
Anchor not allowed there apparently..
Instead, you can put an 'id' attribute directly on the <dt>:
<dt id="ApacheCon">
--Jeff