2013/12/2 Nick White <nick.white(a)durham.ac.uk>
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 01:51:39PM +0200, Amir E.
Aharoni wrote:
That is, more or less, the reason why W3C
recommends using <em> rather
than
<i>. Ideally the ''double
apostrophe'' in wiki-syntax will insert <em>
(now it
inserts <i>), and we'll have styling
somewhere along these lines:
.script-latn em {
font-style: italic;
}
.script-hebr em {
font-weight: bold;
}
(Of course, this is just a simplistic suggestion and the actual styling
may be
different.)
I know this was just an illustrative example, but I'm curious
whether there's any reason not to use the :lang css construct for
cases like this (rather than e.g. .script-hebr)?
So you'd set <body lang="hebr">, then use rules like:
:lang(hebr) em {
font-weight: bold;
}
I'm just checking that there's no good reason not to use this,
because that's what I've been doing with an extension I wrote[0] ;)
"hebr" is a four-letter ISO 15924 writing system code. Such things are more
oriented to writing systems than to languages. There is no standard HTML
attribute for a writing system. If all the languages that use the Hebrew
script have the same design it is easier to group them this way. That's
what Bug 57045 is about.
Of course, it's quite possible that some particular languages would have
special properties, and for them it's possible to use :lang(he) as you
propose, but with a two- or three-letter language code according to the ISO
639-3 language code.
Curious, I'll take a look. Thanks for the link.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore