This is the mail archive of the docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list .
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Yeah, "em" means "emphasis". But "i" does not mean "italic" -- it _is_ italic. "i" is a command to a browser, saying, "render this in italic type". It is purely and completely presentational and carries not one ounce of meaning. Please let's pretend that b and i and tt don't exist and never have existed, and then let's continue from there. How is it any more appropriate to suggest that the stylesheets should output b and i in HTML than it would be to suggest that DocBook should contain <bold> and <italic> elements? Sam Steingold <sds@gnu.org> writes: > > * Michael Smith <fzvgu@kzy-qbp.bet> [2004-11-10 05:56:16 +0900]: > > > > * Use strong/em instead of b/i in HTML output > > with all due respect, I am not quite sure that this is completely > correct. > > I thought that "em" meant "emphasis" while "i" meant italic. > This, "em" should _toggle_ italic, while "i" should turn it on > unconditionally. > Thus, the following: > <i>italic <em>not italic</em> italic again</i> > (at least TeX does something like that with \em and \it). > > If my understanding is correct, then this change might not be correct. > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |