W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > January to March 2000

logical-emphasis switch

From: Peter Evans <evans@i.hosei.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:08:26 +0900
Message-Id: <200002170510.OAA14017@ns.i.hosei.ac.jp>
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Again, I'm new here; so sorry if this has already been discussed:

I understand why <i> and <b> are often better replaced by <em> and <strong>
respectively, but I'm surprised that there's no warning about the
"logical-emphasis" switch in the explanatory web page -- a warning that <cite>
may very often be more appropriate. If <i> is converted to <em> where <cite>
would be more appropriate (e.g. "Nabokov's <em>Lolita</em>"), I think that such
a conversion slightly degrades the resulting page.  Better to have a
"meaningless" <i> tag than an inappropriate and misleading <em> tag, no?

(Incidentally, I've often wondered what's best for marking <i>mots
&eacute;trangers</i>. I usually stick to a safe <i> for them.)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Evans evans@i.hosei.ac.jp
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 00:10:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:43 GMT