W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2006

Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

From: Ognyan Kulev <ogi@fmi.uni-sofia.bg>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:04:18 +0300
Message-ID: <44B09C62.5030003@fmi.uni-sofia.bg>
To: www-html@w3.org

For those interested, Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis_%28typography%29 is sufficiently
good for explaining what is emphasis and how it's achieved.  Please at
least take a loot at Fig. 1.

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Shouldn't <strong> be <hilight> or <keyword>
> if it's for indicating "points of interest"?

Searching in dictionary, alternatives are <standout> and <outline>.
<outline> and <keyword> look kind of too specific, <standout> and
<hilight> look better fitting the purpose but "hilight" is invented word
that's not in smaller dictionaries.

 What about emphasizing
> entire paragraphs, such as a summary?

<em> and <strong> are inline tags (in the inner of paragraph or
sentence) so when entire paragraph is involved, it's really about class
or role.

> In typography, italics has traditionally been used in conjunction with
> serif fonts, and it often works poorly with sans-serif fonts. This is
> often the real reason for using <strong> (or, let us be realistic, <b>)
> in for emphasis, instead on <em> (or <i>).

HTML 4 doesn't define well the semantics of <em> and <strong> and I
consider this as a reason for keeping of using <b> and <i>.  In the way
<strong> is defined ("stronger <em>"), it's useless and redundant.

We hit another problem here. <em> could be same fontface with lighter
letter spacing. Unfortunately, in current CSS it can't be expressed
"p.summary uses em's CSS rules" :-( The explanation I have seen about
this is that CSS should be generated by tools and this is not major
problem. Of course, it can't work this way when someone wants to express
the p.summary for above.

Regards,
ogi
Received on Sunday, 9 July 2006 06:04:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT