I've started cleaning up my HTML and implementing CSS. So far I've
used FrontPage, but am switching over to DreamWeaver.
Reading a bit on W3Schools.com and W3.org I see there are a lot
of HTML code I never even knew existed. Among these are <em> and
<strong>. What's the difference between these two and <i> and <b>?
--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05
129  64426 
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote: How do you render "bold" using a audio output browser?
Speak boldly.
Shawn K. Quinn <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> kirjoitti Tue, 13 Apr 2004
07:50:58 -0500: I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of <b>
in
cases like this.
Using span in this case makes the code more complex. Isn't the
whole point in separating presentation from contents and structure
that a huge number of presentational elements would make the HTML
language and HTML documents complex?
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and <em>.
Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Shawn K. Quinn <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> kirjoitti Tue, 13 Apr 2004
07:50:58 -0500: I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of <b>
in
cases like this.
Using span in this case makes the code more complex. Isn't the
whole point in separating presentation from contents and structure
that a huge number of presentational elements would make the HTML
language and HTML documents complex?
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and <em>.
Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Kris <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote: Possibly there are words, which I do not want to emphasize as
parts of the phrase structure of a sentence. I just want to
help visual human readers finding the word when they skim over
the text.
- - In other words, emphasizing them.
In some sense, certainly.
But I think Stefan made a good point: some emphasis isn't meant to play a
role when reading the text, only to draw attention to the text on the
basis of key words or phrases.
I have thought that <em> is for "local" emphasis, which should be
indicated when the text is read but need not jump on the reader's face,
whereas <strong> is for "global" emphasis, which is roughly the opposite.
In fact, it might be a good idea, for such emphasis usage, to make
<strong> elements clickable so that when clicked on, they turn into
normal text. Just like you might like to click on blinking or marquee
text after it has caught your attention. (Ideally, this would be a
browser feature; it can be clumsily implemented on a per-page and
per-element basis using CSS and scripting.)
This isn't the official position, which only says that <em> is emphasis,
<strong> is strong emphasis, and this doesn't say much. One may wonder
why <strong> is needed if it's just a strong version of <em> - wouldn't
<em><em>...</em></em> or <em level="2">...</em> be more natural?
In reality, <em> and <strong> are apparently afterthoughts, created in a
moral hangover after having too much <i> and <b>. They have always
appeared that way and typically described _after_ <i> and <b> in
specifications and tutorials. They are, in effect, little more than
alias names for <i> and <b>, to satisfy the purists.
And italics is the usual way to indicate "local" emphasis in print
matter, whereas bolding is one of the ways to highlight, and the normal
way in black and white print matter.
Thus, it would be logical to define that <em> emphasizes the enclosed
text with respect to the text in the enclosing element and should be
rendered in a manner that reflects this; whereas <strong> (renamed to
e.g. <key> if we give up continuity, as planned for XHTML 2.0) would
indicate its content as key word or phrase in the context of the entire
document, to appear as highlighted when possible, and to gain special
weight in indexing.
But this is just me. And I'm afraid many speech browsers ignore all of
<em>, <strong>, <i>, <b> at least when reading fast (as usual in heavy
use of such browsers). This could be a problem if the emphasis is
semantically significant, i.e. if the meaning of the text changes when it
is omitted. If <em> and <strong> were defined and consistently used the
way described above, one could safely say that speech browsers may ignore
<strong> (though might offer a special mode where <strong> elements only
are read, or they are read along with some other special elements like
headings and table captions, to give a quick overview, an aural
counterpart of glimpsing at a page), but they should always honor <em>
some way or another, perhaps in a simple but effective way like saying
the word "emphatically" before the content (and "end of emphasis" after
it, if it is long). Similar considerations would apply to character cell
browsers. (The version of Lynx I'm using ignores <em>, <strong>, <i>, <b>
completely, which rather bad. A character cell browser that cannot use
colors should probably do _something_ to indicate emphasis, e.g.
rendering <em>foo</em> as /foo/ and <strong>foo</strong> as **foo**, for
example.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Kris <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote: Possibly there are words, which I do not want to emphasize as
parts of the phrase structure of a sentence. I just want to
help visual human readers finding the word when they skim over
the text.
- - In other words, emphasizing them.
In some sense, certainly.
But I think Stefan made a good point: some emphasis isn't meant to play a
role when reading the text, only to draw attention to the text on the
basis of key words or phrases.
I have thought that <em> is for "local" emphasis, which should be
indicated when the text is read but need not jump on the reader's face,
whereas <strong> is for "global" emphasis, which is roughly the opposite.
In fact, it might be a good idea, for such emphasis usage, to make
<strong> elements clickable so that when clicked on, they turn into
normal text. Just like you might like to click on blinking or marquee
text after it has caught your attention. (Ideally, this would be a
browser feature; it can be clumsily implemented on a per-page and
per-element basis using CSS and scripting.)
This isn't the official position, which only says that <em> is emphasis,
<strong> is strong emphasis, and this doesn't say much. One may wonder
why <strong> is needed if it's just a strong version of <em> - wouldn't
<em><em>...</em></em> or <em level="2">...</em> be more natural?
In reality, <em> and <strong> are apparently afterthoughts, created in a
moral hangover after having too much <i> and <b>. They have always
appeared that way and typically described _after_ <i> and <b> in
specifications and tutorials. They are, in effect, little more than
alias names for <i> and <b>, to satisfy the purists.
And italics is the usual way to indicate "local" emphasis in print
matter, whereas bolding is one of the ways to highlight, and the normal
way in black and white print matter.
Thus, it would be logical to define that <em> emphasizes the enclosed
text with respect to the text in the enclosing element and should be
rendered in a manner that reflects this; whereas <strong> (renamed to
e.g. <key> if we give up continuity, as planned for XHTML 2.0) would
indicate its content as key word or phrase in the context of the entire
document, to appear as highlighted when possible, and to gain special
weight in indexing.
But this is just me. And I'm afraid many speech browsers ignore all of
<em>, <strong>, <i>, <b> at least when reading fast (as usual in heavy
use of such browsers). This could be a problem if the emphasis is
semantically significant, i.e. if the meaning of the text changes when it
is omitted. If <em> and <strong> were defined and consistently used the
way described above, one could safely say that speech browsers may ignore
<strong> (though might offer a special mode where <strong> elements only
are read, or they are read along with some other special elements like
headings and table captions, to give a quick overview, an aural
counterpart of glimpsing at a page), but they should always honor <em>
some way or another, perhaps in a simple but effective way like saying
the word "emphatically" before the content (and "end of emphasis" after
it, if it is long). Similar considerations would apply to character cell
browsers. (The version of Lynx I'm using ignores <em>, <strong>, <i>, <b>
completely, which rather bad. A character cell browser that cannot use
colors should probably do _something_ to indicate emphasis, e.g.
rendering <em>foo</em> as /foo/ and <strong>foo</strong> as **foo**, for
example.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
In article <U7*****************@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rog ers.com>,
C A Upsdell <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote: "David Håsäther" <ha******@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Xn***************************@195.67.237.51. .. > I'm still not sure if I understand when and where to use <em> and
> <strong>.
Use them when you want some text to be emphasized, i.e. more important.
Example:
I <strong>really</strong> like it.
I would more inclined to use <em>really</em> instead for emphasized text.
So the OP may <em>still</em> be in a quandary about which to choose.
They're different degrees of emphasis. <strong> indicates more emphasis
than <em>. I normally use <em>, and use <strong> only occasionally.
--
Jon Bell <jt*******@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
In article <U7*****************@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rog ers.com>,
C A Upsdell <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote: "David Håsäther" <ha******@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Xn***************************@195.67.237.51. .. > I'm still not sure if I understand when and where to use <em> and
> <strong>.
Use them when you want some text to be emphasized, i.e. more important.
Example:
I <strong>really</strong> like it.
I would more inclined to use <em>really</em> instead for emphasized text.
So the OP may <em>still</em> be in a quandary about which to choose.
They're different degrees of emphasis. <strong> indicates more emphasis
than <em>. I normally use <em>, and use <strong> only occasionally.
--
Jon Bell <jt*******@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
"Kris" <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message
news:kr*****************************@newszilla.xs4 all.nl... In article <c5************@uni-berlin.de>,
ra*@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
Wouldn't this count as strong emphasis? That is, wouldn't <strong> and
not <b> be the most adequate markup?
Possibly there are words, which I do not want to emphasize as
parts of the phrase structure of a sentence. I just want to
help visual human readers finding the word when they skim over
the text.
For example, a long text might mention the city of Helsinki.
This city is not intended to be emphasized, but a reader
skiming over the text should get some help to easily find the
word, like it is sometimes done by giving the background a
fluorescent colour:
In other words, emphasizing them.
One way to explain the difference between EM and STRONG is to note the
*traditional* respective uses of italics and boldface.
Italics are used to stress particular terms or phrases or passages to a
person in the course of his reading of a text, much in the way that we
emphasize words or phrases while speaking by raising the volume of our
voices or by speaking the words more distinctly.
Boldface really has few traditional uses in text. An example of where
boldface does appear is in organizational or alumni newsletters or gossip
columns, to make the names of members or classmates or celebrities stand
out, so that a reader can quickly determine, without reading the whole
piece, whether there are any items of interest *to him*. More generally,
boldface is used make words or phrases stand out so that they are more
readily found.
In programmerese, one might say that italics enhance sequential access,
while boldface enhances random (direct) access.
Having looked at the uses of italics and boldface to distinguish between
their meanings, we can now use EM and STRONG as semantic tags to flag those
respective meanings, and leave it to the UA to determine the appropriate
rendering--which often *will* be as italics and boldface, respectively, but
that will depend in large part on the capabilities of the UA.
"Kris" <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message
news:kr*****************************@newszilla.xs4 all.nl... In article <c5************@uni-berlin.de>,
ra*@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
Wouldn't this count as strong emphasis? That is, wouldn't <strong> and
not <b> be the most adequate markup?
Possibly there are words, which I do not want to emphasize as
parts of the phrase structure of a sentence. I just want to
help visual human readers finding the word when they skim over
the text.
For example, a long text might mention the city of Helsinki.
This city is not intended to be emphasized, but a reader
skiming over the text should get some help to easily find the
word, like it is sometimes done by giving the background a
fluorescent colour:
In other words, emphasizing them.
One way to explain the difference between EM and STRONG is to note the
*traditional* respective uses of italics and boldface.
Italics are used to stress particular terms or phrases or passages to a
person in the course of his reading of a text, much in the way that we
emphasize words or phrases while speaking by raising the volume of our
voices or by speaking the words more distinctly.
Boldface really has few traditional uses in text. An example of where
boldface does appear is in organizational or alumni newsletters or gossip
columns, to make the names of members or classmates or celebrities stand
out, so that a reader can quickly determine, without reading the whole
piece, whether there are any items of interest *to him*. More generally,
boldface is used make words or phrases stand out so that they are more
readily found.
In programmerese, one might say that italics enhance sequential access,
while boldface enhances random (direct) access.
Having looked at the uses of italics and boldface to distinguish between
their meanings, we can now use EM and STRONG as semantic tags to flag those
respective meanings, and leave it to the UA to determine the appropriate
rendering--which often *will* be as italics and boldface, respectively, but
that will depend in large part on the capabilities of the UA.
"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:dr********************@speakeasy.net... Stefan Ram wrote:
For example, a long text might mention the city of Helsinki.
This city is not intended to be emphasized, but a reader
skiming over the text should get some help to easily find the
word, like it is sometimes done by giving the background a
fluorescent colour:
(...) As an interesting side note, Meredith Gourdine won
the silver medal in the 1952 Olympics in <b>Helsinki</b>
for the long jump. (...)
This is just the way Google marks words used in a search, when
showing snippets: Reading them, one does not interpret this
mark-up as a means of expression of the author to emphasize
the highlighted word.
I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of <b>
in cases like this.
You could also use <span class="paragraph"> instead of <p>. You could even
create a markup language that dispenses with P, H?, EM, STRONG, CITE, etc.,
altogether, providing DIV and SPAN *only*, and requiring you to assign
classes and use CSS for all formatting information for them. But HTML, while
rescuing us from having to do everything in XML, and having therefore to
create our own DTDs for our particular applications, does provide a few
document-structure tags that are more specific than just DIV or SPAN, and
have some meaning behind them, and it's worthwhile to use them.
"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:dr********************@speakeasy.net... Stefan Ram wrote:
For example, a long text might mention the city of Helsinki.
This city is not intended to be emphasized, but a reader
skiming over the text should get some help to easily find the
word, like it is sometimes done by giving the background a
fluorescent colour:
(...) As an interesting side note, Meredith Gourdine won
the silver medal in the 1952 Olympics in <b>Helsinki</b>
for the long jump. (...)
This is just the way Google marks words used in a search, when
showing snippets: Reading them, one does not interpret this
mark-up as a means of expression of the author to emphasize
the highlighted word.
I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of <b>
in cases like this.
You could also use <span class="paragraph"> instead of <p>. You could even
create a markup language that dispenses with P, H?, EM, STRONG, CITE, etc.,
altogether, providing DIV and SPAN *only*, and requiring you to assign
classes and use CSS for all formatting information for them. But HTML, while
rescuing us from having to do everything in XML, and having therefore to
create our own DTDs for our particular applications, does provide a few
document-structure tags that are more specific than just DIV or SPAN, and
have some meaning behind them, and it's worthwhile to use them.
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:28:12 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: Having looked at the uses of italics and boldface to distinguish between
their meanings, we can now use EM and STRONG as semantic tags to flag
those
respective meanings, and leave it to the UA to determine the appropriate
rendering--which often *will* be as italics and boldface, respectively,
but
that will depend in large part on the capabilities of the UA.
And that's an important point. A text-only UA might use color to render
<strong> and might ignore <b> altogether. So by choosing <b> over <strong>
you are risking the word not being given any sort of prominence in some
environments.
UA's don't all do boldface and italics, and there's no mandate that they
must, if they can, when rendering <strong> and <em> respectively, but I've
yet to see a browser which does not make <strong> and <em> special in some
way. However, a browser which encounters <i>, and which cannot create
italics, really has no better option than to ignore the markup, as it
specifically requests what it cannot do.
That said, someone will come up with a browser that does some funky
presentational thing other then italics to <i> elements. My point is that
you cannot expect a browser to behave like that, and it's natural to
expect it to ignore <i> if it can't make italics.
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:28:12 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: Having looked at the uses of italics and boldface to distinguish between
their meanings, we can now use EM and STRONG as semantic tags to flag
those
respective meanings, and leave it to the UA to determine the appropriate
rendering--which often *will* be as italics and boldface, respectively,
but
that will depend in large part on the capabilities of the UA.
And that's an important point. A text-only UA might use color to render
<strong> and might ignore <b> altogether. So by choosing <b> over <strong>
you are risking the word not being given any sort of prominence in some
environments.
UA's don't all do boldface and italics, and there's no mandate that they
must, if they can, when rendering <strong> and <em> respectively, but I've
yet to see a browser which does not make <strong> and <em> special in some
way. However, a browser which encounters <i>, and which cannot create
italics, really has no better option than to ignore the markup, as it
specifically requests what it cannot do.
That said, someone will come up with a browser that does some funky
presentational thing other then italics to <i> elements. My point is that
you cannot expect a browser to behave like that, and it's natural to
expect it to ignore <i> if it can't make italics.
Harlan Messinger wrote: "Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:dr********************@speakeasy.net...
[snip] I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of
<b> in cases like this.
You could also use <span class="paragraph"> instead of <p>. You could
even create a markup language that dispenses with P, H?, EM, STRONG,
CITE, etc., altogether, providing DIV and SPAN *only*, and requiring
you to assign classes and use CSS for all formatting information for
them. But HTML, while rescuing us from having to do everything in
XML, and having therefore to create our own DTDs for our particular
applications, does provide a few document-structure tags that are
more specific than just DIV or SPAN, and have some meaning behind
them, and it's worthwhile to use them.
It isn't clear to me where the line should be drawn. I think different people
draw it in different places. My target is valid 4.01 Strict, which of course
excludes quite a lot of things, but still doesn't resolve this thread.
I freely use <hr>. But I can't pretend it is much more than presentation. I've
seen suggestions from others that it would be better to use a bordered empty
<div> instead, or other methods. I believe that if we say that CSS is
optional, we should also use mark-up that displays in plausible resemblence to
our layout intentions in the absence of CSS.
(As far as this thread is concerned, I *stongly* believe, and want to
_emphasise_, that <i> is better than <em> for species-names).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Harlan Messinger wrote: "Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:dr********************@speakeasy.net...
[snip] I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of
<b> in cases like this.
You could also use <span class="paragraph"> instead of <p>. You could
even create a markup language that dispenses with P, H?, EM, STRONG,
CITE, etc., altogether, providing DIV and SPAN *only*, and requiring
you to assign classes and use CSS for all formatting information for
them. But HTML, while rescuing us from having to do everything in
XML, and having therefore to create our own DTDs for our particular
applications, does provide a few document-structure tags that are
more specific than just DIV or SPAN, and have some meaning behind
them, and it's worthwhile to use them.
It isn't clear to me where the line should be drawn. I think different people
draw it in different places. My target is valid 4.01 Strict, which of course
excludes quite a lot of things, but still doesn't resolve this thread.
I freely use <hr>. But I can't pretend it is much more than presentation. I've
seen suggestions from others that it would be better to use a bordered empty
<div> instead, or other methods. I believe that if we say that CSS is
optional, we should also use mark-up that displays in plausible resemblence to
our layout intentions in the absence of CSS.
(As far as this thread is concerned, I *stongly* believe, and want to
_emphasise_, that <i> is better than <em> for species-names).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Lauri Vaartaja wrote:
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and
<em>. Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
Tell that to a blind person.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Lauri Vaartaja wrote:
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and
<em>. Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
Tell that to a blind person.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Harlan Messinger h.*********@comcast.net wrote:
In programmerese, one might say that italics enhance sequential access,
while boldface enhances random (direct) access.
I like that a lot...it pretty much precisely sums up how I've been using
them yet approaches it from an entirely different angle
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Harlan Messinger h.*********@comcast.net wrote:
In programmerese, one might say that italics enhance sequential access,
while boldface enhances random (direct) access.
I like that a lot...it pretty much precisely sums up how I've been using
them yet approaches it from an entirely different angle
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: You could
even create a markup language that dispenses with P, H?, EM, STRONG,
CITE, etc., altogether, providing DIV and SPAN *only*, and requiring
you to assign classes and use CSS for all formatting information for
them.
In this reductio ad absurdum, we might go a bit further and use just DIV,
or just SPAN, since the difference can easily be handled in CSS (using
display: block and display: inline). And it would surely be valid HTML.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: You could
even create a markup language that dispenses with P, H?, EM, STRONG,
CITE, etc., altogether, providing DIV and SPAN *only*, and requiring
you to assign classes and use CSS for all formatting information for
them.
In this reductio ad absurdum, we might go a bit further and use just DIV,
or just SPAN, since the difference can easily be handled in CSS (using
display: block and display: inline). And it would surely be valid HTML.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: In this reductio ad absurdum, we might go a bit further and use just DIV,
or just SPAN, since the difference can easily be handled in CSS (using
display: block and display: inline). And it would surely be valid HTML.
Oh indeed: as syntactically valid as it would be semantically empty!
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: In this reductio ad absurdum, we might go a bit further and use just DIV,
or just SPAN, since the difference can easily be handled in CSS (using
display: block and display: inline). And it would surely be valid HTML.
Oh indeed: as syntactically valid as it would be semantically empty!
Barry Pearson wrote: I *stongly* believe, and want to
_emphasise_, that <i> is better than <em> for species-names).
<em> for species name is just plain wrong, not inferior, unless, of
course, one were emphaisizing that species name.
<p>It was <em><i>Homo habilis</i></em> that was the most aggressive
proto-human, not <i>Homo erectus</i>.
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was the most
aggressive.)
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: I *stongly* believe, and want to
_emphasise_, that <i> is better than <em> for species-names).
<em> for species name is just plain wrong, not inferior, unless, of
course, one were emphaisizing that species name.
<p>It was <em><i>Homo habilis</i></em> that was the most aggressive
proto-human, not <i>Homo erectus</i>.
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was the most
aggressive.)
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote: I *stongly* believe, and want to
_emphasise_, that <i> is better than <em> for species-names).
<em> for species name is just plain wrong, not inferior, unless, of
course, one were emphaisizing that species name.
<p>It was <em><i>Homo habilis</i></em> that was the most aggressive
proto-human, not <i>Homo erectus</i>.
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was the most
aggressive.)
I agree. (I think it was <i>Homo brianus</i>).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote: I *stongly* believe, and want to
_emphasise_, that <i> is better than <em> for species-names).
<em> for species name is just plain wrong, not inferior, unless, of
course, one were emphaisizing that species name.
<p>It was <em><i>Homo habilis</i></em> that was the most aggressive
proto-human, not <i>Homo erectus</i>.
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was the most
aggressive.)
I agree. (I think it was <i>Homo brianus</i>).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was the most
aggressive.)
(I think it was <i>Homo brianus</i>).
That was not the wittiest insult I've ever borne.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was the most
aggressive.)
(I think it was <i>Homo brianus</i>).
That was not the wittiest insult I've ever borne.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
Brian wrote:
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was
the most aggressive.)
(I think it was <i>Homo brianus</i>).
That was not the wittiest insult I've ever borne.
What was?
What, you want help thinking up clever ways to be insulting? The longer
you're around, the closer I am to plonking you.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
Brian wrote:
(I made that up, I have no idea which proto-human species was
the most aggressive.)
(I think it was <i>Homo brianus</i>).
That was not the wittiest insult I've ever borne.
What was?
What, you want help thinking up clever ways to be insulting? The longer
you're around, the closer I am to plonking you.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> kirjoitti Wed, 14 Apr 2004
10:53:43 -0400: Lauri Vaartaja wrote:
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and
<em>. Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
Tell that to a blind person.
This is using people with disabilities as an excuse for nothing
else than pure dogmatism. I can't see any problem in assuming that
bold and italics mean emphasis. The alternative user agents do not have
to guess twice. <b> and <i> are not necesseraly "presentational" in any
other sense that their name is derived from some typical presentation.
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> kirjoitti Wed, 14 Apr 2004
10:53:43 -0400: Lauri Vaartaja wrote:
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and
<em>. Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
Tell that to a blind person.
This is using people with disabilities as an excuse for nothing
else than pure dogmatism. I can't see any problem in assuming that
bold and italics mean emphasis. The alternative user agents do not have
to guess twice. <b> and <i> are not necesseraly "presentational" in any
other sense that their name is derived from some typical presentation.
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Lauri Vaartaja wrote: I can't see any problem in assuming that
bold and italics mean emphasis.
I don't see any problem with the assumption that <i> and <b> must mean
something OTHER than emphasis. If emphasis had been intended, then
<em> and <strong> were the only appropriate usage, so <i> and <b>
logically MUST mean something different.
If/when that isn't what the author intended, then that's the author's
fault.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Lauri Vaartaja wrote: I can't see any problem in assuming that
bold and italics mean emphasis.
I don't see any problem with the assumption that <i> and <b> must mean
something OTHER than emphasis. If emphasis had been intended, then
<em> and <strong> were the only appropriate usage, so <i> and <b>
logically MUST mean something different.
If/when that isn't what the author intended, then that's the author's
fault.
Lauri Vaartaja la***********@operamail.com wrote: Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> kirjoitti Wed, 14 Apr 2004
10:53:43 -0400:
Lauri Vaartaja wrote:
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and
<em>. Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
Tell that to a blind person.
This is using people with disabilities as an excuse for nothing
else than pure dogmatism. I can't see any problem in assuming that
bold and italics mean emphasis. The alternative user agents do not have
to guess twice. <b> and <i> are not necesseraly "presentational" in any
other sense that their name is derived from some typical presentation.
the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a specific
visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different kinds of
emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is intended...<I> and <b>
require them to guess
there are a number of situations where the tags aren't congruent...for
instance a typographical convention that require italics would not be
covered by <em>
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
Lauri Vaartaja la***********@operamail.com wrote: Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> kirjoitti Wed, 14 Apr 2004
10:53:43 -0400:
Lauri Vaartaja wrote:
<b> and <i> have exactly the same content model than <strong> and
<em>. Doesn't this mean that the difference is mere philosophy?
Tell that to a blind person.
This is using people with disabilities as an excuse for nothing
else than pure dogmatism. I can't see any problem in assuming that
bold and italics mean emphasis. The alternative user agents do not have
to guess twice. <b> and <i> are not necesseraly "presentational" in any
other sense that their name is derived from some typical presentation.
the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a specific
visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different kinds of
emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is intended...<I> and <b>
require them to guess
there are a number of situations where the tags aren't congruent...for
instance a typographical convention that require italics would not be
covered by <em>
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: In reality, <em> and <strong> are apparently afterthoughts, created in a
moral hangover after having too much <i> and <b>. They have always
appeared that way and typically described _after_ <i> and <b> in
specifications and tutorials. They are, in effect, little more than
alias names for <i> and <b>, to satisfy the purists.
Arabic, Chinese, and many (most?) non-Roman scripts have no "italics"
at all. Specifying <I> for such scripts should (or may) result in
ordinary text. <EM> should always be possible: underline, bolder,
bigger, coloured, etc.
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: In reality, <em> and <strong> are apparently afterthoughts, created in a
moral hangover after having too much <i> and <b>. They have always
appeared that way and typically described _after_ <i> and <b> in
specifications and tutorials. They are, in effect, little more than
alias names for <i> and <b>, to satisfy the purists.
Arabic, Chinese, and many (most?) non-Roman scripts have no "italics"
at all. Specifying <I> for such scripts should (or may) result in
ordinary text. <EM> should always be possible: underline, bolder,
bigger, coloured, etc.
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:07:22
+0100: the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a specific
visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different kinds of
emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is intended...<I> and <b>
require them to guess
The visitor has to "guess" (or rather understand intuitively) what is
intended in any case, because browsers and other user agents have to use
some presentation anyway. There is no difference in this respect between
the "logical" and "physical" elements.
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:07:22
+0100: the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a specific
visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different kinds of
emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is intended...<I> and <b>
require them to guess
The visitor has to "guess" (or rather understand intuitively) what is
intended in any case, because browsers and other user agents have to use
some presentation anyway. There is no difference in this respect between
the "logical" and "physical" elements.
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Lauri Vaartaja wrote: I can't see any problem in assuming that bold and italics mean
emphasis.
<P>I was standing on the dock, waiting for the <i>Majestic</i> to come
into port. I was expecting a shipment of Dobsonflies, <i>Corydalus
cornutus</i> on the ship. Later that morning, I had a meeting with my
lawyer, who was doing <i lang="la">pro bono</i> work for our non-profit
company.</P>
(I suppose I could add lang="la" to the scientific name, too, but I
opted not to.)
The alternative user agents do not have to guess twice.
User agents don't have to guess once. They need only conform to the html
spec as closely as possible. <i> means italics. <em> means emphasis.
<b> and <i> are not necesseraly "presentational" in any other sense
that their name is derived from some typical presentation.
But they don't mean "emphasis." You can assume they do all you like, but
others will not assume that, and might write something like I have
above, and then you have a breakdown in communication because the writer
and reader no longer agree on the meaning of something.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Lauri Vaartaja wrote: I can't see any problem in assuming that bold and italics mean
emphasis.
<P>I was standing on the dock, waiting for the <i>Majestic</i> to come
into port. I was expecting a shipment of Dobsonflies, <i>Corydalus
cornutus</i> on the ship. Later that morning, I had a meeting with my
lawyer, who was doing <i lang="la">pro bono</i> work for our non-profit
company.</P>
(I suppose I could add lang="la" to the scientific name, too, but I
opted not to.)
The alternative user agents do not have to guess twice.
User agents don't have to guess once. They need only conform to the html
spec as closely as possible. <i> means italics. <em> means emphasis.
<b> and <i> are not necesseraly "presentational" in any other sense
that their name is derived from some typical presentation.
But they don't mean "emphasis." You can assume they do all you like, but
others will not assume that, and might write something like I have
above, and then you have a breakdown in communication because the writer
and reader no longer agree on the meaning of something.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Brian wrote: (I suppose I could add lang="la" to the scientific name, too, but I
opted not to.)
FWIW, my understanding is that the language code "la" is supposed to
denote Latin as a human language, NOT the various scientific notations
which we loosely call "Latin" or "Scientific Latin" terms. Google
finds a thread hanging from http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/piperma...ry/000574.html
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Brian wrote: (I suppose I could add lang="la" to the scientific name, too, but I
opted not to.)
FWIW, my understanding is that the language code "la" is supposed to
denote Latin as a human language, NOT the various scientific notations
which we loosely call "Latin" or "Scientific Latin" terms. Google
finds a thread hanging from http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/piperma...ry/000574.html
Lauri Vaartaja wrote: Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti
the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a
specific visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different
kinds of emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is
intended...<I> and <b> require them to guess
The visitor has to "guess" (or rather understand intuitively) what is
intended in any case,
If I come across text like, "He has a savoir vivre," and the last two
words are italicized, I would not assume that the intention was to
emphacize those words, but rather to italicize foreign words. If you
insist on confusing the two, then we have lost that distinction. It
*may* be that a visual browser such as Opera or Mozilla present <i> and
<em> in the same way, but that is only by chance. A speech browser must
use something other than italics for the listener, perhaps increasing
the volume for <em> elements while ignoring <i> elements, or perhaps
speaking "He has a italics [pause] savoir vivre [pause] end italics."
That doesn't seem graceful; if I had a speaking browser, and could
configure it, I'd tell it to ignore <i> tags altogether.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Lauri Vaartaja wrote: Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti
the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a
specific visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different
kinds of emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is
intended...<I> and <b> require them to guess
The visitor has to "guess" (or rather understand intuitively) what is
intended in any case,
If I come across text like, "He has a savoir vivre," and the last two
words are italicized, I would not assume that the intention was to
emphacize those words, but rather to italicize foreign words. If you
insist on confusing the two, then we have lost that distinction. It
*may* be that a visual browser such as Opera or Mozilla present <i> and
<em> in the same way, but that is only by chance. A speech browser must
use something other than italics for the listener, perhaps increasing
the volume for <em> elements while ignoring <i> elements, or perhaps
speaking "He has a italics [pause] savoir vivre [pause] end italics."
That doesn't seem graceful; if I had a speaking browser, and could
configure it, I'd tell it to ignore <i> tags altogether.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Lauri Vaartaja la***********@operamail.com wrote: Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:07:22
+0100:
the point is that <I> and <b> don't MEAN emphasis...they mean a specific
visual presentation...<em> and <strong> mean two different kinds of
emphasis...they tell the site visitor what is intended...<I> and <b>
require them to guess
The visitor has to "guess" (or rather understand intuitively) what is
intended in any case, because browsers and other user agents have to use
some presentation anyway. There is no difference in this respect between
the "logical" and "physical" elements.
no they don't...they use the presentation that is declared to be
appropriate for the specified conceptual context...no guessing is involved
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary" This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
