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

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 01:23:57 -0400
Message-ID: <3EBC8CED.1010507@escape.com>
To: 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.

Roughly speaking, yes. But there are subtler distinctions you can't capture
with just emphasis and more emphasis. Also, nested emphasis doesn't quite
mean the same thing as strong. I'd style nested emphasis like this:
    em {font-style: italic}
    em em {font-style: normal}

But I'd style strong as
    strong {font-weight: bold}

Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 02:12:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:03 UTC