- From: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 16:15:04 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Murray Maloney wrote:
>
> At 03:46 AM 5/6/2007 +0200, Terje Bless wrote:
>> Ah, good old argumentum ad verecundiam. Somehow I suspect this was not
>> the meaning of the word “authority” Philip intended in his query.
>> Although, with that weight of expertise I can understand how you might
>> get them confused.
>
> Ah well, then feel free to dismiss my contribution.
>
> Do you need a citation that somewhat supports my position?
>
> How about the June 1993 Internet Draft for HTML:
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt
>
> [[
> EM Emphasis, typically italic.
> STRONG Stronger emphasis, typically bold.
> B Boldface, where available, otherwise
> alternative mapping allowed.
> I Italic font (or slanted if italic unavailable).
If I may be so bold, may I remind you of "[your] position" ?
You asserted :
> Dear Tina (and everyone else who doesn't quite get this...),
> The semantics* of <i> is emphasise with italic typeface.
> The semantics* of <em> is emphasise, probably with italics
and I can see /no/ evidence in the fragment above to support
your assertion that "[t]he semantics* of {<i>|<em>} is emphasise ...",
since the word "emphasis[e]" occurs nowhere in the definitions
of "B" and "I", appearing only in the definitions of "EM"
and "STRONG" (as Tina, and I, and many others, have been arguing
all along).
Philip Taylor
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 15:15:02 UTC