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

RE: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft - a correction

From: T. Daniel <tdaniel@adetti.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:30:58 -0500
Message-ID: <00ab01c3189b$7c4fade0$c67e3ed8@adetti.net>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

I'm very sorry, I mixed up my quotings when I sent this out originally - I
attributed to John Lewis what should have been attributed to Robin
Lionheart. It should have  read as follows:

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Daniel" <tdaniel@adetti.net>
To: "W3C HTML list" <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

> > Robin Lionheart wrote:
> > I disagree. In my documents <em><em> has a different meaning from
> <strong>.
> I'm with Robin 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
> 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
> "strong emphasis" by a change in volume. I've notice plenty of other
> doing likewise. But an <em> within an <em> I would  indicate not by a
> 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 11:30:11 UTC

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