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

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 20:35:51 +0400
Message-ID: <517046733.20030512203551@hotbox.ru>
To: www-html@w3.org, "T. Daniel" <tdaniel@adetti.net>


2003-05-12T19:27:50Z T. Daniel <tdaniel@adetti.net> wrote:

>> 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.
The changes in pitch/volume clearly indicate the difference between
these elements, the presentational difference.

>> 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.

Hm, I would say this is standard for some local publishers. Other
countries may and do have different traditions.

  Alexander "Croll" Savenkov                  http://www.thecroll.com/
  w3@hotbox.ru                                     http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 12:47:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:38:36 UTC