W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

part of my review of 3.12 Phrase elements (<em> emphasis element)

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:48:31 -0500
Message-Id: <83266682-0A4A-436B-BE84-73C90C9B1A75@robburns.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Nested <em> elements:
Are nested <em> elements, something authors need? I think the  
recommendation should say more than past recommendations on nesting,  
but I'm not sure nesting <em> element to indicate even more emphasis  
is all that useful.

However,  If we do include this perhaps we could make two (or some  
specified number) nested <em> elements equivalent to one <strong>  
which could therefore be deprecated. (This would be preferable to  
introducing a new <strong> element with a new meaning of importance.  
Instead consider introducing <important>, <term> or <keyword>; but  
that's off-topic for this mini-review).

Anger:
The examples are good, except the last one with the mix of anger. I  
didn't understand the anger part. This is a good example of nested  
emphasis, but I'm still not sure it works or how it works for anger.

quote from draft:
Anger mixed with emphasising the cuteness could lead to markup such as:
<p><em>Cats are <em>cute</em> animals!</em></p>
unquote.
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT