Re: Uses of <I>

Christopher R. Maden (crm@ebt.com)
Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:44:52 GMT


From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crm@ebt.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:44:52 GMT
Message-Id: <199608052144.VAA02156@phaser.EBT.COM>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <199608030139.VAA13181@cpcug.org> (kcivey@cpcug.org)
Subject: Re: Uses of <I>

Keith Ivey:
> I don't understand why marking a foreign word with <EM> when you're
> not emphasizing it is any better than marking it with <I>.

Marking a word as foreign is one form of emphasis.  I've seen a number
of SGML DTDs that use <emph type="foreign">.  <em>E.g.</em>,
pretentious people may use the term <em>objets</em> all willy-nilly.

> I'm not even sure about <CITE>; it seems a strange name to use for
> something indicating a title (but then <TITLE> was already taken).
> Wilbur says it's for "citations or references to other sources",
> which doesn't mean titles to mean.

I'm basically working around a limitation of the DTD.  The title of
the work should be noted as such, and <cite> is the closest element.
This is overloading the element, but until real SGML comes to the Web
and I can define my own elements, I have to make do.  That's why HTML
as such is doomed; we can't possibly design a single document type
that's usable for everybody without serious overloading.

> As soon as there's a widely supported way in HTML to indicate all
> the things that italics indicate in print (words used as words,
> foreign words, mathematical (but not programming) variables that
> aren't vectors or Greek letters, emphasized words, species names,
> titles, etc.), I'll stop using <I>.  Not before.

That's reasonable.  Now if only you had the tools to *define* all the
elements you needed...

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//GCA//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//EBT//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN" SYSTEM
"<URL>http://www.ebt.com <TEL>+1.401.421.9550 <FAX>+1.401.521.2030
<USMAIL>One Richmond Square, Providence, RI 02906 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>