On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 01:51:39PM +0200, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:I know this was just an illustrative example, but I'm curious
> 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.)
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] ;)
0. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CharRangeSpan