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

Re: Cleaning House

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 16:29:12 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20070506162338.00ac3170@mail.muzmo.com>
To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Cc: www-html@w3.org,public-html@w3.org

At 06:31 PM 5/6/2007 +0100, Philip & Le Khanh wrote:
>Murray Maloney wrote:
>>At 01:32 PM 5/6/2007 +0200, Tina Holmboe wrote:
>
>>>   They don't. It is, by the material today existing on the web,
>>>   not possible to infer that "<i> means emphasis">
>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis
>
>>         to accent the appearance, to underline, to put in bold,
>>         make something more significant or important.
>>Can you now see that italics are a form of emphasis?
>
>Murray, are you using a different character set to the rest of us ?
>Where, in the page you cite, does the string "italic" occur,
>please ?
Philip, are you being purposely obtuse?

I offered you a definition of "emphasis" that explains that emphasis
is to "accent the appearance" and goes on to mention bold and
underline. I assumed that you could infer italic on your own.
My point was once again to clarify that italic, bold, underline,
ALL CAPS, strikethrough, "quoting" and color changes are all
forms of emphasis.

Will somebody help me out here? I don't know how I can be any clearer
about fact that italic and bold are merely forms of emphasis, and therefore,
<i> and <b> are synonyms for <em> and <strong>.
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 20:50:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT