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  64421 
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"
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: 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. [...]
A speech browser must use something other than italics for the
listener, perhaps increasing the volume for <em> elements while
ignoring <i> elements,
Perhaps speech browsers should use Italian accents for italics? :>
(Actually, if it encounters <i lang="foo">, it may not be a bad
idea to use a foo-vian pronunciation or accent where available...)
;K
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: 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. [...]
A speech browser must use something other than italics for the
listener, perhaps increasing the volume for <em> elements while
ignoring <i> elements,
Perhaps speech browsers should use Italian accents for italics? :>
(Actually, if it encounters <i lang="foo">, it may not be a bad
idea to use a foo-vian pronunciation or accent where available...)
;K
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:27:53
+0100: 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
You seem to mix up the browser program with the person who uses it.
Anyway I will not take part in this thread any further.
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> kirjoitti Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:27:53
+0100: 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
You seem to mix up the browser program with the person who uses it.
Anyway I will not take part in this thread any further.
--
Käytössä M2, Operan vallankumouksellinen sähköpostiohjelma: http://www.opera.com/
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: "Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of
<b> in cases like this.
To begin with, because there will be no hightlighting when CSS is off, ... [snap]
Why not <strong class="highlight"> or <em class="highlight">? In which
cases one is able to define how it will show on CSS-enabled browsers and
CSS-disabled browsers will revert to their standard for these tags.
Jaap
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: "Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of
<b> in cases like this.
To begin with, because there will be no hightlighting when CSS is off, ... [snap]
Why not <strong class="highlight"> or <em class="highlight">? In which
cases one is able to define how it will show on CSS-enabled browsers and
CSS-disabled browsers will revert to their standard for these tags.
Jaap
JotM wrote: Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of
<b> in cases like this.
To begin with, because there will be no hightlighting when CSS is
off, ... [snap]
Why not <strong class="highlight"> or <em class="highlight">? In which
cases one is able to define how it will show on CSS-enabled browsers
and CSS-disabled browsers will revert to their standard for these
tags.
Or, of course, use a type selector if you want all <em> to act the same. Keeps
the HTML clean.
em {
color: #f00;
}
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
JotM wrote: Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:I don't see why <span class="highlight"> couldn't be used instead of
<b> in cases like this.
To begin with, because there will be no hightlighting when CSS is
off, ... [snap]
Why not <strong class="highlight"> or <em class="highlight">? In which
cases one is able to define how it will show on CSS-enabled browsers
and CSS-disabled browsers will revert to their standard for these
tags.
Or, of course, use a type selector if you want all <em> to act the same. Keeps
the HTML clean.
em {
color: #f00;
}
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: 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.
I've done that. The real world is different from the W3C fantasy
land where blind people have special purpose audio browsers with
finely tuned style sheets to speak each element in just the right
way based on the abstract meaning.
--
John Carr (jf*@mit.edu)
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: 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.
I've done that. The real world is different from the W3C fantasy
land where blind people have special purpose audio browsers with
finely tuned style sheets to speak each element in just the right
way based on the abstract meaning.
--
John Carr (jf*@mit.edu)
John F. Carr wrote: Brian wrote:
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.
I've done that. The real world is different from the W3C fantasy
land
My point wasn't limited to browsers or the www. There is a difference
between emphasis and italics. In the real world. And, btw, browers are
used in the real world. By all sorts of real people.
bye.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
John F. Carr wrote: Brian wrote:
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.
I've done that. The real world is different from the W3C fantasy
land
My point wasn't limited to browsers or the www. There is a difference
between emphasis and italics. In the real world. And, btw, browers are
used in the real world. By all sorts of real people.
bye.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Andreas Prilop scribbled something along the lines of: On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote:
How do you render "bold" using a audio output browser?
Speak boldly.
Nobody entends boldface to be read out boldly.
Just think how AOL homepages would sound then -- or GeoCities! <b>Teh
h0rr0r! Teh h0rr0r!</b>
--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:28 +0200, Ashmodai <as******@mushroom-cloud.com>
wrote: Andreas Prilop scribbled something along the lines of:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote:
How do you render "bold" using a audio output browser?
Speak boldly.
Nobody entends boldface to be read out boldly.
Most web designers don't even realize their text mght be read.
Just think how AOL homepages would sound then -- or GeoCities! <b>Teh
h0rr0r! Teh h0rr0r!</b>
Creepy, isn't it? That's the environment of web design - even crappy sites
look good in comparison.
Ashmodai as******@mushroom-cloud.com wrote: Andreas Prilop scribbled something along the lines of:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote:
How do you render "bold" using a audio output browser?
Speak boldly.
Nobody entends boldface to be read out boldly.
Just think how AOL homepages would sound then -- or GeoCities! <b>Teh
h0rr0r! Teh h0rr0r!</b>
ITYM "spacer gif <b>Teh h0rr0r!</b> spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
<b>Teh h0rr0r!</b> spacer gif"
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: 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>
So you have emphasized the proper name of a vessel, emphasized the
scientific name of a species, and emphasized a foreign phrase.
Furthermore, you have followed the traditional practice of using
italic text to perform the emphasis, rather than some modern boldface,
uppercase, underlined, bright colour etc. trendy nonsense. Good on you
for understanding what type of phrases are supposed to be emphasized
and how. But what is your point, Brian? 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.
But what does "italics" mean? A means of emphasizing text by drawing
it in a slanted style. What does emphasis mean? Rendered in a
different style in order to stand apart from surrounding text.
If you know which is the correct style, as you apparently do, you
should use it. <EM> is only useful for cases when you don't know
whether the correct style is <I> (usually) or <B> (almost never). <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.
Where is the breakdown in communication? What you wrote above is a
good example of the correct use of emphasis in text. If you had used
the generic <EM> markup and risked having a phrase that should be
italicized blinking instead, there might have been a breakdown in
communication. Perhaps the dispute arises because the "<em> means
emphasis" crowd think "emphasize" is a euphemism for *SHOUT*? If so,
the advice frequently given to newbies on IRC is apt: please don't
shout.
If you really believe that <em> is "semantic", rather than generic,
explain the difference in "semantics" between <em> and <strong>?
--
Karl Smith.
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Torbjørn Pettersen <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote: 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>?
Using <i> or <b> doesn't say anything about *why* you want italics or
boldface.
To make a span of text stand out from surrounding text? That is, to
emphasize it. The "<em> *means* emphasized" crowd seem to have some
strange idea of what emphasized means.
In contrast, using <em>, <strong>, <cite>, <var>, etc. specifies a
structural meaning.
What is the structural "meaning" of <em>?
And it's easier for browsers (or style sheet authors)
to use some other presentation for the structure when the typical default
presentation is inappropriate (or undesired).
Pardon? How is writing:
strong { font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; }
easier than writing:
u { text-decoration: none; font-style: italic; }
?
Karl Smith go************@kjsmith.com wrote:
If you really believe that <em> is "semantic", rather than generic,
explain the difference in "semantics" between <em> and <strong>?
<em> means that the text should stand out from the surrounding
text...<strong> means that the text should stand out from the surrounding
text as being more important
in other words...if it's especially important it should be marked up as
<strong>...if it's different from the surrounding text but not of greater
importance it should be marked up with <em>
either can be additionally given a class where appropriate
it's a very different form of classification that <I>, <b> and <u> which
operate under different conventions depending on whether the medium is
print, screen or handwriting, and whether the context is academic, legal
or scientific
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"the show's not over till the brass section reach
the bar"
In article <3d************************@posting.google.com>, go************@kjsmith.com (Karl Smith) wrote: Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
<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.
So you have emphasized the proper name of a vessel, emphasized the
scientific name of a species, and emphasized a foreign phrase.
Furthermore, you have followed the traditional practice of using
italic text to perform the emphasis...
Erm ... No. Here: try to make proper sense of the following:
"Midway rendered honors to Harry S. Truman, passing by in New York."
Quick, now: which is a ship, which is a person, which is a place, in the
context of that sentence? There are multiple possible and valid
interpretations. All three have been names of ships (possibly
concurrently), Midway and New York are places, Harry S. Truman happened
to be a person as well.
There are well-established typographic conventions for reducing
confusion in such situations. Italics are often used to _denote_ the
names of ships, but that's very different from _emphasizing_ the name.
After all,
<p><i class="ship">Yorktown</i> wasn't sunk at Coral Sea: <em><i
class="ship">Lexington</i><em> was.</p>
--
Joel. http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."
Karl Smith wrote: Brian wrote:
<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>
So you have emphasized the proper name of a vessel, emphasized the
scientific name of a species, and emphasized a foreign phrase.
I did not <em>emphasize</em> anything. I did, however, used tradition
typography.
Good on you for understanding what type of phrases are supposed to be
emphasized and how. But what is your point, Brian?
Didn't get your Wheaties today, Karl? Or is there some other reason for
the condescending attitude?
Perhaps the dispute arises because the "<em> means emphasis" crowd
think "emphasize" is a euphemism for *SHOUT*?
Who said emphasis means shouting?
If so, the advice frequently given to newbies on IRC is apt: please
don't shout.
I'm not shouting. I'm not IRC. And I'm not a newbie.
If you really believe that <em> is "semantic", rather than generic,
explain the difference in "semantics" between <em> and <strong>?
And if there's no semantic difference between those two, how on earth
does that relate to a discussion about <i> and <em>?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Eric Jarvis scribbled something along the lines of: Ashmodai as******@mushroom-cloud.com wrote:
Andreas Prilop scribbled something along the lines of:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote:
How do you render "bold" using a audio output browser?
Speak boldly.
Nobody entends boldface to be read out boldly.
Just think how AOL homepages would sound then -- or GeoCities! <b>Teh
h0rr0r! Teh h0rr0r!</b>
ITYM "spacer gif <b>Teh h0rr0r!</b> spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
<b>Teh h0rr0r!</b> spacer gif"
I forgot to remove the ending tags -- coz AOLers know: "HTML don't need
no stinking ending tags"
--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes: Karl Smith go************@kjsmith.com wrote:
If you really believe that <em> is "semantic", rather than
generic, explain the difference in "semantics" between <em> and
<strong>?
<em> means that the text should stand out from the surrounding
text...<strong> means that the text should stand out from the
surrounding text as being more important
Interesting argument, but don't know that I'm convinced. If "standing
out" refers to visual appearance, then are we not slipping back into
the confusion of form and content? There are conventions in writing to
convey greater importance through content, such as with syntax or
headings. I'm not sure that the use of visual tricks to convey
importance is a good idea. Rubrics, for example. The word "emphasis"
here can refer to appearance or to content, but, given the desired
separation of the two, <em> must surely now refer to content alone, to
the importance of a string, not its appearance.
In another thread, the issue came up of how to convey the idea of
emphasis in an aural version of the document. Aural emphasis is either
syntactic, and thus works like written text, or it is shouting (where
<em class="bold"> means "turn up the volume").
in other words...if it's especially important it should be marked up
as <strong>...if it's different from the surrounding text but not of
greater importance it should be marked up with <em>
either can be additionally given a class where appropriate
it's a very different form of classification that <I>, <b> and <u>
which operate under different conventions depending on whether the
medium is print, screen or handwriting, and whether the context is
academic, legal or scientific
I assume that <b>, <u> and <i> and <strong> should be understood as
format controls and therefore deprecated. That leaves me with
<em>. What I do is as you suggest, which is to set up classes for bold
and underline.
The reason is that I publish documents written by others and try to
preserve the style of an author who uses bold or underline where
others might use italics. While that violates the principle of
separating style and content, it honors the preference of some
authors. If an author uses an artificial convention, such as
"__Title__.", I have no problem replacing it with the default
<cite>. The old liberal arts convention (Turabian) was to underline
book titles. Since titles would be put into a <cite> container, I need
to use <cite class="underline"> to replace the default italics if I
feel that's what the author wants.
--
Haines Brown br****@hartford-hwp.com kb****@arrl.net www.hartford-hwp.com
Haines Brown br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com wrote: Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes:
Karl Smith go************@kjsmith.com wrote:
If you really believe that <em> is "semantic", rather than
generic, explain the difference in "semantics" between <em> and
<strong>?
<em> means that the text should stand out from the surrounding
text...<strong> means that the text should stand out from the
surrounding text as being more important
Interesting argument, but don't know that I'm convinced. If "standing
out" refers to visual appearance, then are we not slipping back into
the confusion of form and content? There are conventions in writing to
convey greater importance through content, such as with syntax or
headings. I'm not sure that the use of visual tricks to convey
importance is a good idea. Rubrics, for example. The word "emphasis"
here can refer to appearance or to content, but, given the desired
separation of the two, <em> must surely now refer to content alone, to
the importance of a string, not its appearance.
standing out has nothing to do with visual appearance when a non visual
browser is dealing with it...you are imposing a preconception that
everything must be visual on a statement that has nothing to do with
visual presentation
In another thread, the issue came up of how to convey the idea of
emphasis in an aural version of the document. Aural emphasis is either
syntactic, and thus works like written text, or it is shouting (where
<em class="bold"> means "turn up the volume").
wrong...there are a huge range of ways to make a piece of text stand out
in aural presentation...aside from more volume, you can change pitch, you
can pause before and/or after, you can do it faster or slower...and that's
just the basics...as with visual presentation, these options can be
selected according to preference
in other words...if it's especially important it should be marked up
as <strong>...if it's different from the surrounding text but not of
greater importance it should be marked up with <em>
either can be additionally given a class where appropriate
it's a very different form of classification that <I>, <b> and <u>
which operate under different conventions depending on whether the
medium is print, screen or handwriting, and whether the context is
academic, legal or scientific
I assume that <b>, <u> and <i> and <strong> should be understood as
format controls and therefore deprecated. That leaves me with
<em>. What I do is as you suggest, which is to set up classes for bold
and underline.
<strong> is NOT a format control...<strong> is NOT <b> given another
name...it is to denote that the text is of more importance than the text
surrounding it...typically one would represent that visually with bold or
by using a very different colour text...<em> is for when there is no
additional importance to the text but it still needs to be seen as clearly
different from the text around it...typically one would use italics or
perhaps a slightly different colour
The reason is that I publish documents written by others and try to
preserve the style of an author who uses bold or underline where
others might use italics. While that violates the principle of
separating style and content, it honors the preference of some
authors. If an author uses an artificial convention, such as
"__Title__.", I have no problem replacing it with the default
<cite>. The old liberal arts convention (Turabian) was to underline
book titles. Since titles would be put into a <cite> container, I need
to use <cite class="underline"> to replace the default italics if I
feel that's what the author wants.
which is precisely how it should work
it's actually very simple to understand so long as you clearly understand
that <em> and <strong> are different and are not <I> and <b> under another
name
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric, it is easy to talk circles in matters like these, but let me
pursue the point in the hope I'll gain some enlightenment. However, I
believe you misunderstood my point.
To keep things simple, I'll limit myself to the distinction between
<em> and <strong> in a textual context.
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes: <em> means that the text should stand out from the surrounding
text...<strong> means that the text should stand out from the
surrounding text as being more important
Interesting argument, but don't know that I'm convinced. If
"standing out" refers to visual appearance, then are we not
slipping back into the confusion of form and content?
standing out has nothing to do with visual appearance when a non
visual browser is dealing with it...
I feared that _you_ might have associated "standing out" with a
necessarily visual context, but am relieved to know you did not. Note
my conditional If." We are agreed here so far.
you are imposing a preconception that everything must be visual on a
statement that has nothing to do with visual presentation
I'm sorry I did not convey my point more clearly, for it seems you
misunderstood it.
"Stand out" can refer to appearance, but that's not the issue here,
but rather the distinction of a particular from the general, a part
from the whole. For example, italicized text stands out from the rest
of the page; the violinist stood out in the competition. In the first
example, that distinction is neutral. It is merely a statement of the
fact that the particular text is distinguished from the generality.
However, it is also possible that this distinction is associated with
some value. In the second example, the value is the quality of musical
performance.
I was trying to suggest that <em> merely distinguishes a particular
text from its context, without any value (or visual means) implied,
and that the addition of some value associated with that distinction
is best conveyed by class rather than a new element (<strong>).
<strong> is NOT a format control...<strong> is NOT <b> given another
name...it is to denote that the text is of more importance than the
text surrounding it...typically one would represent that visually
with bold or by using a very different colour text...<em> is for
when there is no additional importance to the text but it still
needs to be seen as clearly different from the text around
it...typically one would use italics or perhaps a slightly different
colour
Agreed on your point about <strong>. The text that is made <strong> is
distinguished from context by a value of importance. It no more
implies any particular appearance than <em>. However, I was trying to
suggest that importance is a kind of distinction and therefore better
conveyed by a class such as <em class="bold"> than another element,
<strong>
it's actually very simple to understand so long as you clearly
understand that <em> and <strong> are different and are not <I> and
<b> under another name
Yes, I understand that, which as you say, is a point often
misunderstood. But I was suggesting that <strong> is a specification
of <em> and therefore more logically conveyed by a class for <em> and
a separate element, <strong>.
I may be picky here, and so please excuse.
--
Haines Brown
Haines Brown br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com wrote: Eric, it is easy to talk circles in matters like these, but let me
pursue the point in the hope I'll gain some enlightenment. However, I
believe you misunderstood my point.
To keep things simple, I'll limit myself to the distinction between
<em> and <strong> in a textual context.
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes:
> <em> means that the text should stand out from the surrounding
> text...<strong> means that the text should stand out from the
> surrounding text as being more important
Interesting argument, but don't know that I'm convinced. If
"standing out" refers to visual appearance, then are we not
slipping back into the confusion of form and content?
standing out has nothing to do with visual appearance when a non
visual browser is dealing with it...
I feared that _you_ might have associated "standing out" with a
necessarily visual context, but am relieved to know you did not. Note
my conditional If." We are agreed here so far.
you are imposing a preconception that everything must be visual on a
statement that has nothing to do with visual presentation
I'm sorry I did not convey my point more clearly, for it seems you
misunderstood it.
"Stand out" can refer to appearance, but that's not the issue here,
but rather the distinction of a particular from the general, a part
from the whole. For example, italicized text stands out from the rest
of the page; the violinist stood out in the competition. In the first
example, that distinction is neutral. It is merely a statement of the
fact that the particular text is distinguished from the generality.
However, it is also possible that this distinction is associated with
some value. In the second example, the value is the quality of musical
performance.
I was trying to suggest that <em> merely distinguishes a particular
text from its context, without any value (or visual means) implied,
and that the addition of some value associated with that distinction
is best conveyed by class rather than a new element (<strong>).
you need something to give the class to...that's the whole point...<em>
merely marks the text as being different...adding a class will allow you
to extend that difference...you could, of course, mark up documents using
ONLY <div> and <span> and a whole bunch of classes...but in general it;s
far better if there is some conceptual content implied in the mark
up...you need something to apply the styling to if you want some text to
be seen as different from the surrounding text and <em> does that <strong> is NOT a format control...<strong> is NOT <b> given another
name...it is to denote that the text is of more importance than the
text surrounding it...typically one would represent that visually
with bold or by using a very different colour text...<em> is for
when there is no additional importance to the text but it still
needs to be seen as clearly different from the text around
it...typically one would use italics or perhaps a slightly different
colour
Agreed on your point about <strong>. The text that is made <strong> is
distinguished from context by a value of importance. It no more
implies any particular appearance than <em>. However, I was trying to
suggest that importance is a kind of distinction and therefore better
conveyed by a class such as <em class="bold"> than another element,
<strong>
no...because it actually is conceptually different...not simply a
difference in presentation it's actually very simple to understand so long as you clearly
understand that <em> and <strong> are different and are not <I> and
<b> under another name
Yes, I understand that, which as you say, is a point often
misunderstood. But I was suggesting that <strong> is a specification
of <em> and therefore more logically conveyed by a class for <em> and
a separate element, <strong>.
I may be picky here, and so please excuse.
I don't think they are necessarily related in that way...don't get caught
up in the labels...concentrate on the concepts themselves...<em> is for
different...<strong> is for more important
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis wrote:
[snap] I don't think they are necessarily related in that way...don't get caught
up in the labels...concentrate on the concepts themselves...<em> is for
different...<strong> is for more important
Mmmm. For you it is conceptually different.
The HTML 4.01 spec states in the index of elements
( http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html )
<em> : emphasis
<strong> : strong emphasis
To me this says <strong> stands out _more_ / is _more_ different than
<em>. Not that it is more important.
Just my 2 cents
--
/************************************************** **************************
JotM aka Jaap van der Heide
Remove ".XXXnospamXXX" for a valid return address
Please reply to a news message in the group where the message was posted
************************************************** **************************/
Eric Jarvis wrote:
[snap]
I don't think they are necessarily related in that way...don't get caught
up in the labels...concentrate on the concepts themselves...<em> is for
different...<strong> is for more important
.... more direct: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...ml#edef-STRONG :
<quote>
Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments. The usual
meanings of phrase elements are following:
EM:
Indicates emphasis.
STRONG:
Indicates stronger emphasis.
....
</quote>
--
/************************************************** **************************
JotM aka Jaap van der Heide
Remove ".XXXnospamXXX" for a valid return address
Please reply to a news message in the group where the message was posted
************************************************** **************************/
JotM me*******************@planet.nl wrote: Eric Jarvis wrote:
[snap]
I don't think they are necessarily related in that way...don't get caught
up in the labels...concentrate on the concepts themselves...<em> is for
different...<strong> is for more important
... more direct:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...ml#edef-STRONG :
<quote>
Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments. The usual
meanings of phrase elements are following:
EM:
Indicates emphasis.
STRONG:
Indicates stronger emphasis.
...
</quote>
and precisely how is that inconsistent?
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis wrote: JotM me*******************@planet.nl wrote:
.... ... more direct:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...ml#edef-STRONG :
<quote>
Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments. The usual
meanings of phrase elements are following:
EM:
Indicates emphasis.
STRONG:
Indicates stronger emphasis.
...
</quote>
and precisely how is that inconsistent?
I think that depends on your interpretation and cultural background.
I do not experience inconsistency here. I see these meanings clearly
when using Dutch - my native tongue.
--
/************************************************** **************************
JotM aka Jaap van der Heide
Remove ".XXXnospamXXX" for a valid return address
Please reply to a news message in the group where the message was posted
************************************************** **************************/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
