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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook-apps message

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

Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Re: DocBook XSL 1.67.0 released

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.


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