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

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:20:08 -0500
Message-ID: <18107554883.20030510122008@cda.mrs.umn.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org

fantasai wrote on Saturday, May 10, 2003 at 12:23:57 AM:

> Roughly speaking, yes. But there are subtler distinctions you can't
> capture with just emphasis and more emphasis.

Do you have an example? I've lost the notion that strong emphasis is
somehow special. The only loss of control is a presentational one,
which should be accomplished through style sheets anyway.

> 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}

That doesn't mean strong is different than nested ems, it just means
strong needs to be at least the third level of ems instead of the
second to accomplish the styling you'd like. It's still a
presentational issue, not an issue of meaning. For example:

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

Please see my reply to Robin, who voiced the same concern, for more:

John Lewis
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 13:26:00 UTC

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