W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2002

Re: My comments on the XHTML 2 draft.

From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Date: 06 Sep 2002 12:27:32 -0400
To: "Philip TAYLOR [PC335/O-XP]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <i7wupzxevf.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

"Philip TAYLOR [PC335/O-XP]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> writes:

> William F Hammond wrote:
> . . .
> > In certain typesetting situations one uses italic fonts for quoting a
> > sentence or two.  Emphasized text within the quoted text needs to be
> > so represented, and this is commonly done by using roman text within
> > the italic text.  In a content markup this would be correctly modeled
> > by <emph> within <emph>; 
> With respect, no it would not : it would be correctly modelled by
> <emph> within <quote> (or <quotation>, or <q>, or <blockquote> or
> whatever).  You quite specifically say that the outer text is
> a quotation : then it must be marked up as such, and <emph> not
> abused simply because you hope it will lead to italics...

Doesn't it depend on whether XHTML, version 2, is to be (A) a clone of
a fine-grained document type such as TEI.2 -- in which case probably
yes -- or (B) a generalized layout document type, with content level
modeling of abstract_layout_ -- in which case I would like to cite a
working LaTeX excerpt from the LaTeX Project's

                <eval>kpsewhich sample2e.tex</eval>

(with a small modification):


     In printing, text is usually emphasized with an
     type style.  

        A long segment of text can also be emphasized 
        in this way.  Text within such a segment can be 
        given \emph{additional} emphasis.


                                    -- Bill
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 12:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC