- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:43:48 -0400
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
2011/9/21 Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:50:32 +0900, Daniel Glazman > <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > >> I'm attending the W3C MultilingualWeb Workshop in Limeric, Ireland, >> and a rather good question emerged related to the <em> element: >> >> should the <em> element be rendered using ‘text-emphasis-style' >> instead of 'font-style: italic' for East Asian languages using the >> :lang() pseudo? > > Not basing my answer on specs or existing implementations, just on what > feels right, I would go with 'text-emphasis-style'. Regardless of how common > it is, italic on Japanese or Chinese text is just weird. It’s weird because oblique type simply does not exist in traditional Chinese typography. It exists now, but only because computerization has forced it into existence. Italic type is structurally a cursive form, and I am of the opinion that in Chinese (but probably not Japanese) this standardized cursive form is what is known as the Kai types. Unfortunately they slant in different directions than Latin italic types because of the differing writing directions in the original cursive forms. So slanted type in Chinese or Japanese text looks weird because instinctively we would expect the forms to slant towards the bottom instead of to the right. > Besides, if we do not use 'text-emphasis-style' here, it feels like it > wasn't really worth telling everybody to use <em> instead of <i>. The Chinese interest group is discussing this issue right now. But personally I’d agree. This would be a great way to reverse the adverse effects of computerization on the Chinese punctuation system. > > - Florian > > -- cheers, -ambrose
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 15:44:15 UTC