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) Per Bothner 29 Sep 2012 20:57 UTC
On 09/29/2012 01:42 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote: > But if I understand your concern correctly, it sounds like you're arguing that bold+caps is too strong. That's plausible enough. I worry that <small> is too uncontrolled, no telling what it will do. I can't predict what future browsers will do with <small>, even if every browser today made me happy. If we're talking about styling, most SRFIs using the standard SRFI "template" start out all wrong: The big <h1> title is the content-less word "Title" while the actual title is in a much smaller font. I think this is a flaw in the SRFI requirements, but it can alleviated with some CSS styling. For example like I did in http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-64/srfi-64.html . For what it's worth, instead of: <H1>Title</H1> Curly-infix-expressions something like this would make more semantic sense: <h1 id="title">Curly-infix-expressions</h1> but the SRFI process doesn't allow that. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/