By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,637 Members | 1,945 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,637 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Markup for foreign languages

P: n/a
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):

'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf.
'So it is,' they answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'

Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?

David
Stardate 4884.4
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
43 Replies


P: n/a
David Trimboli wrote:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):

'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf.
'So it is,' they answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'

Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?


as far as I know, <i> and <em> will both do the job... (if there is a
difference between the two I don't know of it...) as far as usage,
that's totally up to you... in the 'normal' world, italics is usu. used
both for emphasis and to quote words from foreign languages (and other
things also, like quoting titles of books..) HTH, good luck.. Frances

Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:42:05 GMT, David Trimboli <Su****@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):

'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf.
'So it is,' they answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'

Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?


(SuStel, Human Hol DaghItlh'a'? Haven't heard from you in a long while,
David. Pop me an email...)

Anyway, em should only be used when, if you're reading the text, you'd
emphasize the word. Like:

<p>You should <em>never</em> touch the red button.</p>

And since many UA's don't do italics, and some do nothing, and none are
really required to to italics for that anyway, it's not the best choice.

I divide italic situations into 3 categories.

1) Emphasized words - em - or other uses which match an existing markup.

2) Purely deciration - use CSS

3) Stuff that doesn't exactly match existing markup. Here, I'd actually
use <i>. The setting-off is not for presentational purposes, it's for
setting off a term.

CSS italics (using span) wouldn't be wrong, mind you. But in no-CSS
renderings that can produce italics, you still want the italics, so I go
for <i>.

Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
as far as I know, <i> and <em> will both do the job... (if there is a
difference between the two I don't know of it...)


See my previous post. em is for emphasis, i is to make the text italic.
Not realy the same.
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<xj*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >, the lovely and
talented David Trimboli broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In
print, this is typically shown with italics. For instance
(asterisks represent italics): 'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf. 'So it is,' they
answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.' Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?


HTML 4.01 (strict) doesn't have an appropriate element for this. I
suggest you use SPAN with an appropriate class such as "foreign" and
with an appropriate lang attribute. This may make it easier to
convert the document in case want to use a different markup language
at another time. You can then use styles to get the proper presentation,
which will be italics if the context is roman and roman if the context
is italics.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ei*****@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
If it wasn't for muscle spasms, I wouldn't get any exercise at all.
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl*********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<xj*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >, the lovely and
talented David Trimboli broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In
print, this is typically shown with italics. For instance
(asterisks represent italics):

'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men
make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf. 'So it is,' they
answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is
more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'

Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to
represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something
else?


HTML 4.01 (strict) doesn't have an appropriate element for this. I
suggest you use SPAN with an appropriate class such as "foreign" and
with an appropriate lang attribute. This may make it easier to
convert the document in case want to use a different markup language
at another time. You can then use styles to get the proper
presentation,
which will be italics if the context is roman and roman if the
context
is italics.


This makes sense to me. It's structurally marked up, but it's
entirely up to my styles to set it off. Thanks!

David
Stardate 4884.4
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, David Trimboli wrote:
'So it is,' they answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is
more pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'
Only moments ago, while looking for something else, I stumbled on
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Generat...NT_ITEM_TYPE=0
Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>?
I really don't think so.
Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?


<span lang="whatever"> would be impeccably correct. (In conjunction
with an appropriate stylesheet, presumably).

I'd quite possibly plump for <i lang="whatever"> , on the grounds that
presentation of foreign terms in italics is conventional. But unless
emphasis it genuinely intended, the use of <em ...> would be perverse.

Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, David Trimboli wrote:
Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to
represent
this? <EM>?


I really don't think so.
Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?


<span lang="whatever"> would be impeccably correct. (In
conjunction
with an appropriate stylesheet, presumably).

I'd quite possibly plump for <i lang="whatever"> , on the grounds
that
presentation of foreign terms in italics is conventional. But
unless
emphasis it genuinely intended, the use of <em ...> would be
perverse.


Well, I only suggested <EM> because of a code example in the specs
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...html#h-8.1.2):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<HTML lang="fr">
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Un document multilingue</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
....Interpreted as French...
<P lang="es">...Interpreted as Spanish...
<P>...Interpreted as French again...
<P>...French text interrupted by<EM lang="ja">some
Japanese</EM>French begins here again...
</BODY>
</HTML>

The example doesn't explain why it uses <EM>. I was thinking that the
use of italics in print for foreign words might be an example of a
special kind of emphasis.

<I lang="whatever"> is an interesting idea, though.

David
Stardate 4884.6
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:42:05 GMT, David Trimboli <Su****@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):

Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?


I've struggled on this for quite a while now. Dutch language uses many
foreign words especially when writing about computers or the www.
I've solved this at first by using <i lang="en">, then switched to <em
lang="en">, because I thought it to bemore appropriate with HTML 4.01.
Didn't like that either in the end.
Now I use <span lang="en"> and in my stylesheet span[lang]
{ font-style:oblique; }. Not sure what I'll be using tomorrow though ;-)
--
Webontwerp <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
Blog <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
DTD <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/dtd/not_so_strict.dtd>
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:41:12 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
I'd quite possibly plump for <i lang="whatever"> , on the grounds that
presentation of foreign terms in italics is conventional. But unless
emphasis it genuinely intended, the use of <em ...> would be perverse.


I'd use <em> in a dictionary context, <i> otherwise.

What should the lang attribute be ? Is lang="x-elvish" the best, or
is there a whole taxonomy of Middle Earth linguistics stuck down in
the depths of ISO3166 and Unicode ? (I don't really want to know
this)

Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
David Trimboli wrote:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):


Yes, and I find it distracting and useless. Either I KNOW it's a
foreign-language term, or I don't. Italicizing it won't make a
difference, it just makes reading the text more difficult.
Matthias

Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Now I use <span lang="en"> and in my stylesheet span[lang]
{ font-style:oblique; }.


SPAN should rarely be necessary. Here it is better to write
<i lang=...> or <i lang=... class=...>

"font-style:oblique" instead of "italic" isn't really a
good idea.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:22:06 +0100, Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Now I use <span lang="en"> and in my stylesheet span[lang]
{ font-style:oblique; }.
SPAN should rarely be necessary. Here it is better to write
<i lang=...> or <i lang=... class=...>


Why?
"font-style:oblique" instead of "italic" isn't really a
good idea.


Why?

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Now I use <span lang="en"> and in my stylesheet span[lang]
{ font-style:oblique; }.


SPAN should rarely be necessary. Here it is better to write
<i lang=...> or <i lang=... class=...>


Why? <span> and <i> have identical semantics, they are only
presentationally different. One reason may be that using <i>...</i>
instead of <span>...</span> does save 6 characters if you're really
worried about file size and bandwidth (though there are much more
effective ways to reduce those), while also giving the desired visual
effect, but they are semantically the same so either would be fine.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
SPAN should rarely be necessary. Here it is better to write
<i lang=...> or <i lang=... class=...>


Why?


SPAN and DIV have no meaning at all; they are just "empty".
For semantic markup (what HTML is, IMHO), use the element
that comes closest to your intention. Since you want basically
italic text, this is "I". The element "I" also keeps its
meaning when stylesheets are disabled or not available at all.
"font-style:oblique" instead of "italic" isn't really a
good idea.


Why?


http://www.adobe.com/print/tips/feli...0717/main.html

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Why? <span> and <i> have identical semantics, they are only
presentationally different.


Come again? <SPAN> (like DIV) has *no* semantics at all,
whereas <I> means italics.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Why? <span> and <i> have identical semantics, they are only
presentationally different.

Come again? <SPAN> (like DIV) has *no* semantics at all,
whereas <I> means italics.


Exactly! Italics is only presentation, hence why I said they are only
presentationally different. Semantically, <i> means nothing.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web
Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:22:30 +0100, Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
SPAN should rarely be necessary. Here it is better to write
<i lang=...> or <i lang=... class=...>
Why?


SPAN and DIV have no meaning at all; they are just "empty".


So is <i>.
For semantic markup (what HTML is, IMHO), use the element
that comes closest to your intention.
My intention is to markup a part of the content as a foreign language. Since there is no element to do that with in HTML 4.01, I use an empty element, in this case <span>. Serves my intention just fine.
Since you want basically
italic text,
I don't want italic text. Where did you get that idea? :-) I want a part of content to be expressed in a language that is something other than the language of the main document. Besides that, I think perhaps there are visitors who, like I do, like to get a signal that indicates that an expression or a word or phrase is expressed in another language than the one used for the main part of the content.
For the first purpose I use <span> since there is no other element. For the second purpose I might give that <span lang> a style that stands out for reading visitors with a sufficient GUI.
this is "I". The element "I" also keeps its
meaning when stylesheets are disabled or not available at all.


That's a good point. Hmm. Works even in Lynx, unlike my <span lang> does.
"font-style:oblique" instead of "italic" isn't really a
good idea.


Why?


http://www.adobe.com/print/tips/feli...0717/main.html


Thank you. I never knew this. Just changed all my obliques to italics.

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
Jul 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
SPAN and DIV have no meaning at all; they are just "empty".


So is <i>.


<span>abcdef</span> means nothing at all, whereas
<i>abcdef</i> means that "abcdef" should be in italics.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 23 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Exactly! Italics is only presentation, hence why I said they are
only presentationally different. Semantically, <i> means nothing.


You're using "semantically" in a rather restrictive sense here.

In the semantics of HTML, <i> calls for a display in italics (in
situations where that's feasible).

What you're meaning to say, I think, is that this carries no
information about the semantics of the *content*; and in that I
would agree with you.
Jul 23 '05 #20

P: n/a
In message <xj*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >, David
Trimboli <Su****@hotmail.com> writes
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):

'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf.
'So it is,' they answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'

Sticking to strict HTML 4.01, what would be the best way to represent
this? <EM>? Is this use considered emphasis, or is it something else?

David
Stardate 4884.4


I would be inclined to mark up the word with a <span> containing the
appropriate language setting

e.g. .... <span class="french" lang="fr">Bonjour, Monsieur</span> .....

with the class 'french' set to italics for display purposes.

This means that 'Bonjour, Monsieur' is displayed in italics on screen
and print, and assistive technology (screen readers, talking browsers,
etc.) will switch languages temporarily and pronounce the words with the
correct (French) pronunciation.

regards.
--
Jake

Jul 23 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:54:54 +0100, Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
SPAN and DIV have no meaning at all; they are just "empty".


So is <i>.


<span>abcdef</span> means nothing at all, whereas
<i>abcdef</i> means that "abcdef" should be in italics.


Not if I put i { font-style:normal } in my stylesheet :-D

Here is what W3C has to say about <span>, which they describe as a "generic language/style container" in the TOC with HTML4.01 elements:

<quote>
The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id
and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for
adding structure to documents. These elements define
content to be inline (SPAN) or block-level (DIV) but
impose no other presentational idioms on the content.
Thus, authors may use these elements in conjunction
with style sheets, the *lang*attribute*, etc., to
tailor HTML to their own needs and tastes.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-SPAN>
</quote>
My **

With <span> the [lang] attribute gets at least mentioned. With <i>, described by the W3C as "italic text style", about all W3C says is "It is possible to achieve a much richer variety of font effects using style sheets."

I think <span> is better suited for the job than <i> is.

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html>
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>
Jul 23 '05 #22

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt <sp***********@gmail.com> wrote in news:l%ond.42041$K7.27631
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Why? <span> and <i> have identical semantics, they are only
presentationally different.

Come again? <SPAN> (like DIV) has *no* semantics at all,
whereas <I> means italics.


Exactly! Italics is only presentation, hence why I said they are only
presentationally different. Semantically, <i> means nothing.


Well, whatever semantical value I has, SPAN certainly has less. The
element I at the very _least_ indicates that its content is _different_ (in
some mysterious way) than the content surrounding. Also, it implies that
the difference is of some sort that is significant enough to desire a
different appearance of the text.

Some people might also say that it indicates its content as coming from the
set of all types of content that typically gets rendered italicized -- a
set that includes binomial nomenclature, foreign language, and a person's
thoughts. (Some novels use italicized text instead of quoted text for the
thought of characters.) Of course, that might be reading into things too
much.

In any case, <i> has no downsides and is more practical.
Jul 23 '05 #23

P: n/a
David Trimboli wrote:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics.


I use <span lang="whatever"> or, in XHTML 1.0 Strict, <span
lang="whatever" xml:lang="whatever">. Contrary to what other people
have said, I think span *does* have meaning to it. It groups together a
bit of inline content so that you can identify it as being something
different from what surrounds it. It certainly is a structural element
in that sense.

You can then apply whatever presentation you want to it by using a
stylesheet, in conjunction with a class attribute like <span
lang="whatever" class="otherlanguage">

<i> crosses the border between structure and presentation, but in
reality I suppose it is more structural these days, even though
originally it was intended to literally provide italic text. For example:

<p>Italic text gives a sloped appearance to a piece of text - <i>this is
an example of italic text</i>.</p>

In other words, you are identifying a piece of text as being italic, not
*displaying* a piece of text as italic.

--
Chris Simon
os******@slcszetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/csimon/

** Get rid of all SLCs to reply directly **
Jul 23 '05 #24

P: n/a
PS. The W3C say for HTML 4.0 that <i> is a font style rather than a
structural and although it isn't deprecated, its "usage is discouraged
in favour of stylesheets".

--
Chris Simon
os******@slcszetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/csimon/

** Get rid of all SLCs to reply directly **
Jul 23 '05 #25

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Andreas Prilop wrote:
<span>abcdef</span> means nothing at all,


It means that abcdef are grouped in some unspecified way, and
separated in some unspecified way from what surrounds them.

That's not very much - but it's slightly larger than "nothing at all",
IMHO.
Jul 23 '05 #26

P: n/a
Sam Hughes wrote:
Lachlan Hunt <sp***********@gmail.com> wrote in news:l%ond.42041$K7.27631
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Exactly! Italics is only presentation, hence why I said they are only
presentationally different. Semantically, <i> means nothing.
Well, whatever semantical value I has, SPAN certainly has less. The
element I at the very _least_ indicates that its content is _different_ (in
some mysterious way) than the content surrounding.


As does span. Both <i> and <span> can be considered to be generic
inline container elements. While neither of them have any associated
semantics by themselves, their content can be given author defined
semantics, by using the class and/or id attributes, or language
semantics using the lang and dir attributes.
Also, it implies that the difference is of some sort that is
significant enough to desire a different appearance of the text.
But it says nothing at all about why it is different. In this case,
marking up foreign languages, the semantics applied to the content does
infact come from the use of the lang attribute, not the element itself.
Although the author has indicated the desired presentation is infact
italics; and <i>, in this case, can be used as a shortcut to achieve
that presentation without causing any harm, the reason for choosing
italics is infact the use the alternate language. Unless the author
always intends for alternate langauges to be indicated by italics
regardless of the stylesheet, or lack thereof, then the use of <i>
should be avoided.

While, technically, it just as easy to remove italics from <i>, as it is
to apply them to <span lang="x"> (assuming good CSS support), I
recommend the use of <span>, and I would apply style using either of
these selectors, as appropriate:

[lang="x"], :lang(x), html [lang] {}

If IE support is desired, then a class could be added to the span also,
or it may be more practical to work around it by using <i>.
Some people might also say that it indicates its content as coming from the
set of all types of content that typically gets rendered italicized -- a
set that includes binomial nomenclature, foreign language, and a person's
thoughts.


That sounds like your trying to apply semantics to the element based on
its presentation, rather than applying presentation based on semantics.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web
Jul 23 '05 #27

P: n/a
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Andreas Prilop wrote:
<span>abcdef</span> means nothing at all, whereas
<i>abcdef</i> means that "abcdef" should be in italics.
Not if I put i { font-style:normal } in my stylesheet :-D


Wrong. You've changed the presentation of the text, but not the meaning.
With <span> the [lang] attribute gets at least mentioned. With <i>,
described by the W3C as "italic text style", about all W3C says is
"It is possible to achieve a much richer variety of font effects
using style sheets."


Indeed. But you're not looking for a rich set of font effects. If you
don't want italics, then <span> is correct. In English, foreign words
are traditionally set off with italics, so <i lang=".."> is arguably a
better choice.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:16:18 GMT, Lachlan Hunt <sp***********@gmail.com>
wrote:
Some people might also say that it indicates its content as coming from
the set of all types of content that typically gets rendered italicized
-- a set that includes binomial nomenclature, foreign language, and a
person's thoughts.


That sounds like your trying to apply semantics to the element based on
its presentation, rather than applying presentation based on semantics.


Perhaps. But how else, in an HTML-onlt, no-CSS environment, will you
enable foreign words to be italicized as is stylistically correct?

The Engligh language rules of style dictate that novels, large musical
works, foreign words, ship names, etc. should be italicized when italics
are possible. In this case the italicization has a semantic effect.

Which sentence refers to a person, and which refers to a boat?

Big Billy is ready at the pier.

<i>Big Billy</i> is ready at the pier.

The italics change the meaning of the sentence, and so they are semantic.
Jul 23 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:15:58 +0100, Matthias Gutfeldt
<sa************@gmx.net> wrote:
David Trimboli wrote:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks represent
italics):


Yes, and I find it distracting and useless. Either I KNOW it's a
foreign-language term, or I don't. Italicizing it won't make a
difference, it just makes reading the text more difficult.


Yet it is a rule of style all the same; whether you like it or not does
not affect its appropriateness.
Jul 23 '05 #30

P: n/a
"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...
The Engligh language rules of style dictate that novels, large musical
works, foreign words, ship names, etc. should be italicized when italics
are possible. In this case the italicization has a semantic effect.

Which sentence refers to a person, and which refers to a boat?

Big Billy is ready at the pier.

<i>Big Billy</i> is ready at the pier.

The italics change the meaning of the sentence, and so they are semantic.


Sold! It'll be <i lang="whatever"> for me.

David
Stardate 4886.7

Jul 23 '05 #31

P: n/a
In article <xj*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >,
"David Trimboli" <Su****@hotmail.com> writes:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language term. In print,
this is typically shown with italics. For instance (asterisks
represent italics):

'I thought it was only a kind of *cram,* such as the Dale-men make
for journeys in the wild,' said the Dwarf.
'So it is,' they answered. 'But we call it *lembas* or waybread,
and it is more strengthening than any food made by Men, and it is more
pleasant than *cram,* by all accounts.'


Oh dear. Some of the followups put me in mind of angels and pinheads.

The answer is in the question:
(1) There isn't a semantic element for "foreign language" in HTML.
So you have to fall ack on a general-purpose element.
(2) You've already said "typically shown with italics". There *is*
an HTML element for that - namely <i>.
(3) There *is* an attribute for foreign language. But it would be
inappropriate here, as it's effectively an enumeration and your
languages fall outside it.
(4) You could nevertheless busk it: they are after all pronounced
by an englishman, so they're english within english.
(5) Use CSS for presentation.

so <i class="elvish" lang="en-mythical-elvish">lembas</i>

--
Nick Kew
Jul 23 '05 #32

P: n/a

"Nick Kew" <ni**@hugin.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:9h************@hugin.webthing.com...
In article <xj*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >,
"David Trimboli" <Su****@hotmail.com> writes:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language > (4) You could
nevertheless busk it: they are after all pronounced

by an englishman, so they're english within english.
(5) Use CSS for presentation.

so <i class="elvish" lang="en-mythical-elvish">lembas</i>

There are many such spans in the code for
http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/studies/eagles.htm They are not styled
for italic display. I don't know how many screen readers recognize the
language changes.
Chris Watson a.k.a. "The Bicycling Guitarist"

Jul 23 '05 #33

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:16:18 GMT, Lachlan Hunt <sp***********@gmail.com>
wrote:
That sounds like your trying to apply semantics to the element based
on its presentation, rather than applying presentation based on
semantics.
Perhaps. But how else, in an HTML-onlt, no-CSS environment, will you
enable foreign words to be italicized as is stylistically correct?


That is, infact, only presentation, so just because UAs lack the default
style, as you believe is required, it is no reason to add that
presentation using markup.
The Engligh language rules of style dictate that novels, large musical
works, foreign words, ship names, etc. should be italicized when italics
are possible.
I've never heard that rule before, but it is a presentational rule, and
I doubt it applies to many other languages, besides English, so such a
rule is only typographical, and should be left to the stylesheet to
handle, based on the correct semantic markup.
In this case the italicization has a semantic effect.
Only because you are perceiving semantics based on its presentation, not
because the element actually has any semantics.
Which sentence refers to a person, and which refers to a boat?

Big Billy is ready at the pier.

<i>Big Billy</i> is ready at the pier.
Until I read that rule you gave above, I would have had no idea.
The italics change the meaning of the sentence, and so they are semantic.


No, the italics only change the way you perceive the meaning of the
sentence, so it is presentational.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web
Jul 23 '05 #34

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<96******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, the lovely and
talented Lachlan Hunt broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
No, the italics only change the way you perceive the meaning of the
sentence, so it is presentational.


That is exactly right. Italics affect the meaning, but they are
presentational. In other words: presentation vs. content is a false
dichotomy. Sure, if you cannot perceive the presentaion, content is
all you have to go on, but that doesn't imply that presentation is
meaningless.

Now, of course the rule here has been misstated. Titles, foreign
words, emphasis, etc. typically are set in italics because the
context is roman. But when then context is italics (as in editorial
remarks), they are set in roman.

HTML is what comes of letting technical people decide on markup for
literary works and letting the blind make the rules for the sighted.

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ei*****@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
If it wasn't for muscle spasms, I wouldn't get any exercise at all.
Jul 23 '05 #35

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
What should the lang attribute be [for Elvish]?


It should be "art", for artificial.
Jul 23 '05 #36

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
Big Billy is ready at the pier.

<i>Big Billy</i> is ready at the pier.

The italics change the meaning of the sentence, and so they are semantic.


Italics may change the meaning of a sentence to a human reader who can
guess what they're being used for based on the rest of the sentence, but
there's no inherent meaning to italics: are they being used for
emphasis? Citation? Foreign name? Boat name? Appearance? Unless you have
an understanding of the English language, there's no way to know.
Therefor, they have no semantic value on their own, although they can be
used to express it.
Jul 23 '05 #37

P: n/a
In message <bv******************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, The
Bicycling Guitarist <Ch***@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> writes

"Nick Kew" <ni**@hugin.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:9h************@hugin.webthing.com...
In article <xj*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >,
"David Trimboli" <Su****@hotmail.com> writes:
In a text, I might want to include a foreign language > (4) You
could nevertheless busk it: they are after all pronounced

by an englishman, so they're english within english.
(5) Use CSS for presentation.

so <i class="elvish" lang="en-mythical-elvish">lembas</i>

There are many such spans in the code for
http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/studies/eagles.htm They are not
styled for italic display. I don't know how many screen readers
recognize the language changes.
Chris Watson a.k.a. "The Bicycling Guitarist"

HPR recognises 'lang=de' and 'lang=fr' each time you use them and
pronounces the word(s) accordingly.

This works if you set HPR to 'automatic language detection'.

Not only does it correctly pronounce them, but it does so with the
appropriate accent. Unfortunately, this last 'feature' does detract from
the 'listening pleasure' a little (it sounds a bit strange) when it does
so for individual words as well as complete phrases/sentences ;-)

regards.
--
Jake

Jul 23 '05 #38

P: n/a
"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...
Now, of course the rule here has been misstated. Titles, foreign
words, emphasis, etc. typically are set in italics because the
context is roman. But when then context is italics (as in editorial
remarks), they are set in roman.
Aw, shucks, you're right. If I have my <P> style set to italics, then
foreign language terms should be roman. So <i lang="blah"> won't
work. Unless I change those language span styles too.

That's too complicated. Guess it's got to be <SPAN lang="blah"> after
all.
HTML is what comes of letting technical people decide on markup for
literary works and letting the blind make the rules for the sighted.


Seems to be true.

David
Stardate 4888.6
Jul 23 '05 #39

P: n/a
For what it's worth...(!)

I have English/Welsh bilingual web sites
(http://www.dawnswyrdelyn.org.uk/ and http://www.nantperis.org.uk) (not
really looking for a critique but I make apologies now for any design
bloomers as I'm a programmer not a graphic designer!)

Because I live in Wales and because the web sites are to do with Welsh
organisations, there are lots of Welsh words in the English versions.
First of all, I've never heard of this rule before that states that
foreign languages shold be indicated in italics. Secondly, I object to
Welsh being called a foreign language! In my area, Welsh is by far the
dominant language. Perhaps what people mean by "foreign language" in
terms of HTML is a language that differs from the base language of the
page. Thirdly, I think to italicise all Welsh words would become
tiresome to read.

There is no doubt that to supply lang attributes on an element to
specify a language change *is* the correct thing to do. It strikes me
that the delivery element for this is a matter of taste.

I don't see why the name of my dance group Dawnswyr Delyn should be
marked up as italics. It doesn't make sense. Someone made the point
about non-CSS browsers. Well, take Lynx. It does actually indicate
language changes. I don't see a need to mark them up as <i> (or <b> or
<font color="red"> for that matter).

I think whether or not you use <i> is dependant on whether you prefer to
use <i> in other situations to italicise text, in preference to
stylesheets. Similarly <b> if you want to display something as bold.

I suspect <em> might even be a better element in this situation. It's a
hint to the browser that the item is to be highlighted or needs
attention drawing to it. Most browsers will render it as italics anyway
by default.

--
Chris Simon
os******@slcszetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/csimon/

** Get rid of all SLCs to reply directly **
Jul 23 '05 #40

P: n/a
PS. Just noticed that on my dance home page, there is a paragraph that
starts

"Since our formation in 1986 we have represented our town, district, and
country at various national and international festivals and
competitions, including Galway, Nantes, Amsterdam and Briec."

You'll notice that there are some words in that sentence that are not
English or even Welsh!

I have marked this up as:

<p>Since our formation in 1986 we have represented our town, district,
and country at various national and international festivals and
competitions, including Galway,
<span xml:lang="fr">Nantes</span>, Amsterdam and <span
xml:lang="fr">Briec</span>.

I think a page full of italicised words dotted here and there and
sometimes in quick succession is overkill.

--
Chris Simon
os******@slcszetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/csimon/

** Get rid of all SLCs to reply directly **
Jul 23 '05 #41

P: n/a
JRS: In article <vx*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.ne
t>, dated Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:17:31, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.au
thoring.html, Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> posted :
In English, foreign words
are traditionally set off with italics, so <i lang=".."> is arguably a
better choice.


No, foreign words are traditionally set off by toggling the state of
italics at the beginning and end. Also names of ships.

In order that there can be a "foreign" marker that works independently of
the existing state, it is AFAICS necessary either :

To use oblique, and to increase the obliquity at each step,
or
To have a circular set of font-styles, and to use the next at each step
(which, for two styles, is toggling).
HTML & CSS have the concept of imposing a new state for a while then
turning it off and returning to the previous state, but for some types of
state they lack the ability to ensure that an imposition is a change.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #42

P: n/a
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:18:41 +0000, Chris Simon
<os******@sclszetnet.co.uk> wrote:
I think whether or not you use <i> is dependant on whether you prefer to
use <i> in other situations to italicise text, in preference to
stylesheets. Similarly <b> if you want to display something as bold.


I'd rephrase - dependant on whether it's stylistically appropriate to use
<i> in other situations. Preference isn't really the right word - if it's
mere preference without regard to conventional print style, CSS should be
used instead.
Jul 23 '05 #43

P: n/a
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:05:10 GMT, David Trimboli <Su****@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...
Now, of course the rule here has been misstated. Titles, foreign
words, emphasis, etc. typically are set in italics because the
context is roman. But when then context is italics (as in editorial
remarks), they are set in roman.


Aw, shucks, you're right. If I have my <P> style set to italics, then
foreign language terms should be roman. So <i lang="blah"> won't
work. Unless I change those language span styles too.


<p class="italic">This paragraph is italic. <i>Ergo</i>, foreign words
should be Roman.</p>

CSS:

..italic {font-style: italic;}
..italic i {font-style: normal;}
Jul 23 '05 #44

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.