Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
John Cowan
(28 Sep 2012 00:25 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(29 Sep 2012 18:46 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly) David A. Wheeler (29 Sep 2012 18:58 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
John Cowan
(29 Sep 2012 19:27 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(29 Sep 2012 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
Per Bothner
(29 Sep 2012 21:00 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(30 Sep 2012 00:26 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly)
David A. Wheeler
(30 Sep 2012 00:31 UTC)
|
Re: Cleaning up SRFI 105 MUSTard (mostly) David A. Wheeler 29 Sep 2012 18:58 UTC
John Cowan: > I recommend the use of small capital letters rather than > italics for these key words: this can be achieved in HTML with > <small>MUST</small>, <small>SHOULD</small>, etc. or in HTML/CSS with > <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">must</span>, etc. Unfortunately, <small> in HTML just makes the font smaller; it's by no means guaranteed that it's the right size for small capital letters. I worry that using <small> will make these REALLY important words hard to see, which is clearly not desired. We *could* achieve that affect in CSS, but we're supposed to stick with HTML 3.2. So I don't think <small> is a good idea here; we just don't have that fine a control over the typography. But I understand your concern about italics. I think we'd be better off just making them bold, using <b>...</b>, and capitalizing them too. Then it'd be rather hard to miss these key words. --- David A. Wheeler