- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:24:19 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
Recently, there was a longish thread on emphasis elements (the old issue of em, strong, i, b) in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, with no consensus as usual. I decided it's time to make a concrete proposal, so I wrote http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/em.html which contains a fairly long argument that ends with the following suggestions: 1) Define em as indicating its content as more important than the content of the enclosing element. 2) Require that user agents render em element content as different from the surrounding text, at least when em elements are not nested. 3) Define strong as indicating its content as a key word or phrase that is descriptive of the content of the document. User agents would be encouraged but not required to highlight such content. 4) Define the em attribute for block level elements, indicating level of emphasis so that "0" (the default) indicates lack of any particular emphasis, positive values indicate importance, and negative values indicate that the content is less important than normal text. Basically, <em> and <strong> are _different in essence_, not just different levels of emphasis. If continuity with HTML tradition is to be broken, the <strong> element would best be renamed to <key> or <hilite>. Personally, I think there's not enough novelty in the current XHTML 2.0 draft to justify breaking the continuity. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 2 May 2004 15:24:22 UTC