- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 12:11:15 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Quoting Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>: > Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >> Quoting Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: >>> Note that the current WHATWG HTML5 proposal defines <strong> as >>> denoting importance and <em> as denoting emphasis. For "strong >>> emphasis" you would use nested <em> elements. >> >> The difference being...what exactly? > > Read the spec. > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-strong > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-em I assume you refer to "Changing the importance of a piece of text with the strong element does not change the meaning of the sentence." and "The placement of emphasis changes the meaning of the sentence." Which is a distinction that, despite the copious examples for <em>, feels artificial... Ho hum, P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 11:14:03 UTC