- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:45:52 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Joseph Mansfield <sftrabbit@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Joseph Mansfield wrote: > > The current semantic meaning of the em element may be confused with that > of the strong element. The specification states that the em element > increases the level of emphasis. There are, however, two definitions of > the word "emphasis": > > 1. Importance, value, or prominence given to something. > 2. Stress laid on a word or words to indicate special meaning or > particular importance. > > While the specification does specify that the em element represents > "stress emphasis" - the form of emphasis that changes the meaning of a > sentence - the frequent use of the word "emphasis" alone may imply > importance. However, the strong element is responsible for importance. > Take the given example: > > <p><em>Cats</em> are cute animals.</p> > > The cats are not important - they are stressed. Stress changes the > meaning of the sentence, while importance does not. > > To make this clearer, I suggest two options for changing section 4.6.2: > > 1. Keep the "stress emphasis" from the first sentence and replace all > other occurences of "emphasis" with "stress emphasis". > 2. Replace occurences of "stress emphasis" and "emphasis" with simply > "stress". This, however, loses the attachment to the element name. I've tried to make this clearer in the spec. Let me know if there's any cases that are still confusing in this manner. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 17:46:25 UTC