[uf-discuss] a very early draft proposal hTagcloud

[David Janes]

If IE6 compatibility is the issue, why not do the rating+rel-tag+css
selectors, plus a hack for backwards browsers?

 <abbr class="value" title="4">
 <a rel="tag" href="/tags/Web+Standards+Group" class="tsize4">
  Web Standards Group
 </a>

Where e.g. "tsize4" is not part of the semantics but rather a purely
presentation hack?

Regards, etc...
David

On 9/20/06, Ben Ward <lists at ben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2006, at 02:23, Chris Messina wrote:
> > I think what you need to define are ways to express relativety -- and
> > that <strong>, <em>, <big> and <small> can help in indicating those
> > relationships with styles turned off. So for example, the very
> > smallest size might always have <em> surrounding the <small> tags...
> > so that there's a lower limit. You could use <em> or <strong> around
> > the <big> tags to express the upper limit.
>
> I'm not sure about using BIG and SMALL. We start getting into the
> territory of redefining elements (adding semantic values to those
> presentational elements[1]) which is something the WHATWG are already
> doing with HTML5. Mainly, they're redefining SMALL for 'small print'
> in documents [2], which conflicts directly with using SMALL in tag
> clouds.
>
> Personally I quite like the nested behaviour. I accept that is also
> unspecified implied semantics, but it doesn't seem unreasonable… that
> said, you can get four levels of tag cloud without nesting of the
> same element (by using STRONG as well), e.g:
>
> <ol class="hTagcloud">
>    <li>A Level One</li>
>    <li>B Level One</li>
>    <li><em>C Level Two</em></li>
>    <li><strong>D Level Three</strong></li>
>    <li><strong><em>E Level Four</em></strong></li>
>    <li><strong>F Level Three</strong></li>
>    <li>Level One</li>
> </ol>
>
> Would four levels be enough?
>
> Ben
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.1
> [2] http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-small_______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>