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

Re: Nested ems vs. strong (was: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft)

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:22:04 +0200 (MEST)
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <13000.1052745724@www61.gmx.net>

In my opinion the whole discussion is based on the real antagonism that
XHTML offers structure as well as presentation, although there are CSS only
designed for the presentation part.

To solve this problem, you would have to remove all elements related to
presentation aspects (like <em />, <strong />, <b />, <pre />, <kbd /> etc.pp.,
and although there might be some 'spongy' elements) to let web designers or
developers realize the offered functionality completely via CSS. This might
sound strange, but I think it is only consequent.

Otherwise accept it like it is. Anyway, this thread would be obsolete.


 Jens Meiert.



> 
> fantasai / 2003-05-09 12:56:
> 
> > kelvSYC wrote:
> > 
> >>strong Element:
> >>It's semantically identical to the em element.  Remove it.
> > 
> > It's not identical. The emphasis is stronger in <strong>.
> 
> I think that strong has more emphasis only. As we can nest em 
> elements, there's no need for strong.
> 
> For example, if you use style like
> 
>      em{font-style:italic}
>      em em{font-style:normal}
> 
> to present emphasized text then the style is broken. Think about how 
> you would read such text; you would emphasize the text and when the 
> text rendered as normal inside emphasized text you'd emphasize it a 
> bit more. Definately you wouldn't read that part as it would be a 
> part of normal text. So, the issue that a piece of information with 
> double emphasis looks like normal text is with the provided style only.
> 
> It seems to me that most of the people who want to keep strong also 
> think it should be rendered as bold by default. However, that is 
> purely presentational and I think all agree that both em and strong 
> elements describe some kind of emphasis and strong gives more 
> emphasis than em. On the other hand, there is no definition how much 
> more emphasis strong gives. If I have two nested ems, is that still 
> less emphasized than a single strong. How about three? How about a 
> hundred?
> 
> It seems many people in this thread believe that three nested ems 
> should be equal to the strong element we have today. I think two 
> nested ems should be equal to the strong element, but I never liked 
> styles that format double emphasis as normal text.
> 
> -- 
> Mikko
> 


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91
Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5

eMail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com>
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 09:22:12 GMT

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