RE: Rendering of RFC2119 vocabulary [RE: Syntax: Table 3]

Hello,

I've used the official W3C guidelines for this.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 12 November 2008 13:14
> To: Michael Schneider
> Cc: Boris Motik; W3C OWL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Rendering of RFC2119 vocabulary [RE: Syntax: Table 3]
> 
> 
> > >All other URIs from the reserved vocabulary constitute the ''disallowed
> > >vocabulary'' of OWL 2 and=20
> > ><em title=3D"MUST in RFC 2119 context" class=3D"RFC2119">MUST NOT</em>=20
> >
> > I wonder why we use a "<em>" tag here, instead of "<i>". We don't want
> > to emphasize anything, but want to make sure that the browser prints
> > the word in an "italicized" way.
> 
> I doubt anyone will notice or care which we use, but on the off-chance
> they do, as I understand it, <em> is actually the better choice because
> it's closer to intent/semantics.  Italicizing is just a way to emphasize
> things; in some cases there may be better ways.  For instance, how
> should a screen reader intone "MUST NOT"?  The reason I think this
> doesn't matter is that (I suspect) screen readers render <i> elements as
> if they were <em> elements.
> 
> > And why not just use a "<span>" tag, and having /all/ rendering =
> > information in the "RFC2119" class?
> 
> Because it's good practice to make the document render as readably as
> possible (give or take other good practices, eg around table use) even
> when CSS processing is not being done.
> 
>       -- Sandro