- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 19:08:03 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
2013-09-09 18:08, Steve Faulkner wrote: > I am not saying that at some point the semantics will not be > implemented, question is what is the difference between use of <b> and > <strong> or <i> and <em>, how would such subtlety be conveyed usefully > and given the rampant /misuse /how would understanding be increased by > distinguishing between the two. That’s a good question, and worth considering when discussing the phrase elements in general. But within a quotation, whatever the difference might be, it should be retained simply because it is the right thing (morally, scientifically, and legally). Whatever is presented as direct quote should be an exact reproduction of the quoted part of work, except when changes are necessitated and indicated. It’s an author’s choice (good or bad, informed or not) to use <b> vs. <strong>. In quotations, as well as in translations, this choice should be honored. Whether an average reader notices the difference does not matter. What matters is that it *may* be noticeable, e.g. when a special user style sheet is used, or when someone reads the HTML source and yells out “oh, the author is misusing the <b> element!!!” Adding emphasis of some kind to a quotation is generally accepted when it is clearly identified as not being part of the original work. Regarding <mark>, it would be acceptable to use it to indicate changes (like annotations) made to quoted text, provided that all user agents will communicate this idea to users (this isn’t going to happen, really) or that the change is clearly explained in text (which puts us to square one). -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 16:08:31 UTC