OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Stage One Proposal: Adding strong and em as elements to the highlight domain (and redefining the b and i elements)


Requirement:

Many new people coming to DITA have expressed confusion as to the supposed semantic nature of DITA, and then seeing the existence of only the b (bold) and i (italics) elements. HTML has long supported (since the “HTML+” specification from 1993) the additional strong and em elements as more descriptive, semantic equivalents for b and i.

HTML5 has taken this one step further by fully defining b and i as semantic elements, distinct from strong and em.

In keeping with HTML5, a standard that many coming to DITA for have more than a passing familiarity with, this proposal suggests that strong and em be added as elements to the highlight domain, and that the suggested usage for the b and i elements be re-defined within the specification but otherwise remain unchanged.

Proposal:

strong element would inherit from topic/ph, and could be defined as follows:

The strong element should be used to indicate strong importance, seriousness, or urgency of content. Typically, it’s content will be rendered in bold at output. This element is part of the highlighting domain. Use this element only when a more semantically appropriate element is not available. For example, for a specific warning, consider using an appropriate element from the hazard statement domain, such as hazardstatement. 

em element would also inherit from topic/ph, and could be defined as follows:

The em element should be used to indicate emphasis. A stress emphasis is designed to change the meaning of a phrase or sentence, or stressing the importance of a particular noun, verb or adjective. Typically, it’s content will be rendered in italics at output. This element is part of the highlighting domain. Use this element only when a more semantically appropriate element is not available. For example, when indicating a different mood or voice, the i element may be more relevant. 

The b element description would also change, though functionally it is unchanged. The current definition for b in DITA 1.3 (minus the boilerplate) is:

The b element is typically used to apply bold highlighting to the content of the element.

A revised definition could make it semantically descriptive, more in line with HTML5’s current definition, and could look like the following:

The b element should be used to draw attention to a word or phrase for utilitarian purposes without implying that there is any extra importance. There is also no implication of an alternate voice or mood, or that its content should be actionable.

Similarly, the i element would also be redefined. Its current definition in DITA 1.3 (minus the boilerplate) is:

The i element is typically used to apply italic highlighting to the content of the element.

A revised definition could make it semantically descriptive, more in line with HTML5’s current definition, which could look like the following:

The i element should be used for a word or phrase indicating either an alternate voice or mood, or to otherwise offset it from the content around it to indicate a different quality of text, such as a taxonomic designation, an idiomatic phrase from another language, or a ship name.

 

Background:

In my time as a DITA trainer, the question of why the i and b elements existed and strong and em was always a hard thing to explain for a language which is supposedly semantic in nature. DITA 1.3 made a step in what I think was the right direction by moving these elements from the typographic domain to the highlighting domain, making clear the intent of this collection of elements to highlight or otherwise draw attention to the content it marks up.

I considered the possibility of having strong and em in a completely separate, parallel domain, but I think their inclusion into highlighting makes sense, especially if b and i (and perhaps some of the other elements in this domain) can be more semantically described. 

This is definitely not a high priority item, and I believe the impact of adding these two new tags and re-defining two old ones will be minimal. I also suspect that there will be at least a few people out there who will be glad for a more semantic alternative to b and i (I have heard of at least one tech docs team that has specialized equivalents of strong and em), while still retaining them both. And while I do not think we should feel obliged to fall in step with HTML5 in all things (far from it, in fact), I think this particular addition/change makes sense, and in some small way will make the transition easier for those learning DITA who have a working background in HTML.

While we will be adding even more elements to the specification and thereby adding to the argument of “bloat”, I suspect that those two additional elements would be welcomed by the community at large. I am aware of at least a couple of instances of technical documentation groups that constrain away the highlighting domain, but the inclusion of strong and em, and redefining b and i in a more semantic fashion may make them rethink this for DITA 2.0.

Cheers!

 

-

Keith Schengili-Roberts
Market Researcher and DITA Evangelist
 
IXIASOFT 
825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1
tel  + 1 514 279-4942  /  toll free + 1 877 279-4942 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]