W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2003

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: Robin Lionheart <w3c-ml@robinlionheart.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 02:10:51 -0400
Message-ID: <012d01c316ba$e89d58e0$9c79e518@prolog021503my>
To: "W3C HTML list" <www-html@w3.org>

John Lewis wrote:
> fantasai wrote on Friday, May 9, 2003 at 4:56:08 AM:
>> kelvSYC wrote:
>>> strong Element:
>>> It's semantically identical to the em element. Remove it.

>> It's not identical. The emphasis is stronger in <strong>.

> Nested em elements can accomplish the same thing where needed (with
> only one added character in length), rendering the strong element
> basically useless. Style sheets can be used to suggest presentation as
> needed. For example:
>
>     em{font-style:italic}
>     em em{font-weight:bold;font-style:normal}
>
> Or anything else you'd like.

I disagree. In my documents <em><em> has a different meaning from <strong>.

In my style sheets, I generally use:

em { font-style: italic }
em em { font-style: normal }
strong { font-weight: bold }

Emphasised running text get standard weight emphasis with italics.
Emphasized words within that emphasized text also get standard weight
emphasis by being unitalicized. But strong denotes a different weight of
emphasis entirely, and so gets the different presentational treatment of
boldface.
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:09:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT