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: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:45:55 -0600
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA4AC5178.EEA4FEB1-ON86256888.001C81F3@rfdinc.com>

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 Friday, 24 March 2000 12:47:32 GMT

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