Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • Greg Chapman
    Hi Jason, ... I m with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious point that the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 13, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jason,

      > <i> loses it's meaning when you don't use it to italicize, <em> is
      > always unmistakeably emphasis.

      > gGyc> 3. Style sheets can be used to dictate the rendering of <i> just as
      > gGyc> easily as <em> and of <b> just as easily as <strong>
      >
      > That's just fantastic, just what we need, confusion to make life
      > easier for you.

      I'm with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious point that
      the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also has
      absolutely no meaning.

      Whilst, I must confess, I only use visual browsers and only expect my users
      to do so, and so, in the real world, I do tend to use <I> tags, I do
      completely accept the thrust of the W3C, that style and structure should be
      separated.

      Can anyone tell me whether aural browsers shout louder, speak deeper, or
      just add and Italian accent, when reading an <I> tag? Don't answer! It'll
      be defined in the stylesheet, won't it?

      Greg
    • goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@yahoo.com>
      ... . ... point that ... my users ... should be ... no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing structural about and .
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Chapman" <greg@e...> wrote:
        .
        >
        > I'm with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious
        point that
        > the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also has
        > absolutely no meaning.
        >
        > Whilst, I must confess, I only use visual browsers and only expect
        my users
        > to do so, and so, in the real world, I do tend to use <I> tags, I do
        > completely accept the thrust of the W3C, that style and structure
        should be
        > separated.
        >

        no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing
        "structural" about <em> and <strong>. both are just as presentational
        as <i> and <b>; only difference is, the rendering of <em> and <strong>
        is not declared by the html standard, but was only conventionally
        treated as italics and bold-weight by the browsers.

        anyway, this is offtopic so I'll shut up.

        stp
      • jorigami <jorma.oksanen@aina.fi>
        ... EM/STRONG *are* structural elements: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-EM Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments.
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@y...>" <GoldenApuleius@y...> wrote:

          > no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing
          > "structural" about <em> and <strong>. both are just as presentational
          > as <i> and <b>; only difference is, the rendering of <em> and <strong>
          > is not declared by the html standard, but was only conventionally
          > treated as italics and bold-weight by the browsers.

          EM/STRONG *are* structural elements:
          http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-EM
          "Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments."

          Also see
          http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/phrase/em.html


          Jorma
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.