-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20 Jul 2003 04:27, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:53:45AM +0100, James D. Forrester wrote:
[Snip]
What we want is exactly *font information*, we should be using font mark-up.
No, 'we' want text mark-up, '''you''' seem to want font mark-up. Font mark-up is inherently evil and wrong in the context of a web-based system. Feel free to fork a print-medium version of the Wikipedia; this isn't what we are about, and never has been - Wikipedia isn't a print medium, as is expostulated in a large variety of discussions and pages, notably on meta.
Just think for a moment - when read aloud it should be read the same way as the rest of text, not with any emphasis added
Sorry, but this is Just Plain Wrong; if you read italicised or emboldened text as plain-spoken text, you're Doing It Wrong (tm).
Anyway code style doesn't really matter here - we should use whatever results in smaller Recent Changes.
No. 'Philosophical' this point may be, but abject utilitarianism isn't a suitable method for standards design or adherence. What you propose would render the Wikipedia unusable for some people; surely this runs entirely contrary to the concept of open use that the Wikipedia aims for?
[Snip]
This isn't really 'complicated' per se, it just requires people to understand the underlying philosophy of HTML.
Underlying philosophy is "primitive text display mark-up language later extended to support other media types, but not very good at it"
No. NOT 'display'. Honest.
And a far more useful byte-stripper would be to install mod_gzip (or is this being used already?).
Completely unrelated.
Err, no. This can dramatically reduce the number of bytes transmitted, which is what any and all suchwise effort is geared towards. It's certainly not unrelated.
[Snip]
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester mailto:jon@eh.org | mailto:csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk mailto:jamesdforrester@hotmail.com | mailto:james@jdforrester.org