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

Re: <strong> is not equivalent to <em> <em>

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3EBD5A4B.6060905@escape.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

John Lewis wrote:
>
> What's the meaning of nested ems other than more and more emphasis?
> How the em elements are presented doesn't affect what they mean (i.e.,
> roman text in italic text is still adding emphasis, it's just using a
> different style to indicate emphasis).
...
> The point is that it's a style issue, so the strong element still
> isn't needed.

You're missing the point. Nested emphasis means *nested* emphasis.

<em>Don't forget to <em>turn off the light</em>.</em>

The whole sentence is emphasized with respect to the surrounding text.
Within that sentence, "turn off the light" is emphasized with respect
to the emphasized text. This is why
                    em { font-style: italic }
                    em em { font-style: normal }
makes sense.

If I write
       I <em><em>don't</em></em> want to go there.
the code indicates that "don't" is emphasized wrt the surrounding
emphasized content which is emphasized wrt the rest of the sentence.
This is not the same as
       I <strong>don't</strong> want to go there.
which means "don't" is emphasized wrt the surrounding text, but the
emphasis is stronger than with <em>.

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 15:59:24 GMT

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