W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: STRONG; I, B, (TT)

From: Alan G. Isaac <aisaac@american.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:28:12 -0500
Message-ID: <38B2AB0C.77970948@american.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org
Why isn't it more natural to see EM as signaling
contrast with the surrounding text, so that a natural
style would follow a toggling convention (e.g., between
italic and roman, as in LaTeX)? If so, the availability
of EM and STRONG may allow a natural toggling of
emphasis (EM) and increasingly strong emphasis
(STRONG).

Alan Isaac




Jonny Axelsson wrote:

> KILLING OFF STRONG
> This is an old, tiresome discussion, and I am sorry to dreg it up again.
> STRONG was created by false analogy. One of the major reason why italic is
> used, is to denote emphasis. Since EMphasis "got rid of" italic, something
> similar for bold was needed, thus STRONG. The problem is that this use of
> boldface was largely a result of the DTP (desktop publishing) revolution.
> Anyway, a more natural way to encode "more EM than EM" would be to double
> EM. That way designer that really want to present this doubled emphasis
> differently can set up a style "em em {font-weight:bolder}" I will
> <em><em><em>never</em></em></em> use strong.
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 10:28:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT