Re: PEPr Comment Box

Paul M Jones wrote:

On Mar 24, 2004, at 5:10 PM, Tobias Schlitt wrote:

Is it just me, or is the comment box in PEPr *way* too small?

I guess it would look pretty ugly, to have it bigger in the place it currently resists in. If it should be larger we have to move it to another place.

Maybe have the "votes" box go wide (like Timeline) and then "Comment on this proposal" below that (also wide).

Hi Paul! Please open a bugreport for that for PEPr!

Done.

Also, it appears that [i]...[/i] tags are being interpreted as bold-italic, not just italic. Shall I enter a bug report?

Inside the "comment" field? Or inside the describtion?

Sorry, inside the description of the proposal itself.

This is obviously a bug in HTML_BBCodeParser. Please open a bugreport there!

Turns out the "problem" (if it can be called that) is with the stylesheet. BBCode_Parse correctly renders [i] as <em>, but the styles.css has this: em {

    font-weight: bold;
    font-style: italic;

} I thought, in general, that <em> was equavalent to <i>, and <strong> ~= <b> ... but I could be wrong.

<W3C:Fanatic> <em> means Emphasis, <strong> means Strong Emphasis - the fact they are styled in italics and bold respectively is a coincidence. Theres nothing in the specification to say that a useragent should render them these way, they are for purely semantic meanings - as all (X)HTML tags should be. The style is left upto CSS. Just to drive the point home, there is *nothing* to stop IE suddenly making <em> 16px lime green and <strong> 84px bright yellow by default - it would still have the same *meaning*. Semantic meaning becomes more important when being read by non-graphical useragents, this includes CLI browser, text-to-speech clients and braille clients - just as a side note, Google responds better to semantically marked up text than tag soup (it can tell <h1> is an important header, but it can't tell that about <div class="important-header"> :) </W3C:Fanatic> - Davey