W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: italic fonts

From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:57:32 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <oprwobl60mu930jj@mail.icet.co.uk>

I am not sure that I agree with some of the assumptions used her. Not all 
italics are particularly detrimental to being able to read text. It 
entirely depends on the font. The reason for having strong and em is that 
they provide different roles. Strong gives more weight (visually and 
semantically) to a word, as oposed to em which is commonly used to mark 
out key points of information. This might seem a subtle distinction but it 
is important.

My two pence,


On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:28:36 +0100, Scarlett Julian (ED) 
<Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk> wrote:

>> So my advice would be go with bolding if you need emphasis.
> Is there a case for doing away with <strong> altogether and having <em> 
> display in bold by default unless specified as different in the css. It 
> strikes me that the distinction, semantically, between <em> and <strong> 
> is becoming rather blurred.
> Just thinking aloud..
> Julian
> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be 
> disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not 
> the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email 
> software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any 
> responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it 
> has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the 
> message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as 
> possible.
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 09:01:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:25 UTC