- From: Peter Evans <evans@i.hosei.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:08:26 +0900
- To: html-tidy@w3.org
Again, I'm new here; so sorry if this has already been discussed: I understand why <i> and <b> are often better replaced by <em> and <strong> respectively, but I'm surprised that there's no warning about the "logical-emphasis" switch in the explanatory web page -- a warning that <cite> may very often be more appropriate. If <i> is converted to <em> where <cite> would be more appropriate (e.g. "Nabokov's <em>Lolita</em>"), I think that such a conversion slightly degrades the resulting page. Better to have a "meaningless" <i> tag than an inappropriate and misleading <em> tag, no? (Incidentally, I've often wondered what's best for marking <i>mots étrangers</i>. I usually stick to a safe <i> for them.) +++++++++++++++++++++ Peter Evans evans@i.hosei.ac.jp
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 00:10:20 UTC