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

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: T. Daniel <tdaniel@adetti.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:27:50 -0500
Message-ID: <009201c3189b$0cffe400$c67e3ed8@adetti.net>
To: "W3C HTML list" <www-html@w3.org>

> John Lewis wrote:

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

I'm with John on this. <em><em> could be used for a case where there an
entire phrase might be emphasized, but then a sub-phrase is granted a
secondary level of emphasis within the text. I see <em> and <strong> not as
too levels of emphasis, but as two "flavors". When reading text aloud, for
example, I usually indicate an emphasized phrase by a change in pitch, but a
"strong emphasis" by a change in volume. I've notice plenty of other people
doing likewise. But an <em> within an <em> I would  indicate not by a change
in volume, but by a different pitch than the rest of the phrase.

> In my style sheets, I generally use:
> em { font-style: italic }
> em em { font-style: normal }

This is in keeping with standard typographical practices in print.

I'd prefer it if <strong> isn't trashed, but if it is, I'll learn to live
without it.

T. Daniel
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 11:27:09 GMT

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