What's the difference between: <em>emphasis</em> and <i>italicized</i> and <strong>strong</strong> and <b>bold</b> It seems to subtle for my browsers. The only "difference" I've been able to find is that according to the O'Reilly book <strong> and <emphasis> are semantic tags, while <b> and <i> are physical, but, most browsers render them the same way (unless you've played subtle games with CSS). _Are_ there any browsers that render them differently? /anton
> What's the difference between: > > <em>emphasis</em> and <i>italicized</i> > and > <strong>strong</strong> and <b>bold</b>First, they are all elements in the XHTML namespace. Second, <em> and <strong> mean emphasis, while <i> and <b> are intended to say "in visual presentation, make this italic or bold". That's all!> It seems to subtle for my browsers. > The only "difference" I've been able to find is that according to the > O'Reilly book <strong> and <emphasis> are semantic tags, while <b> and <i> > are physical, but, most browsers render them the same way (unless you've > played subtle games with CSS). > > _Are_ there any browsers that render them differently?Don't know. It depends upon the default style sheet used by browsers. The CSS 2.1 default style sheet styles <em> and <i> with italics, and <strong> and <b> in bold. For all the visual browsers, both old and new that I know of, they default the same way in visual presentation. From a visual presentation viewpoint they lead to the same end-result for nearly all browsers I know. But from a text semantic perspective, they are quite different. This begs the interesting rhetorical question: in non-visual presentation, such as text-to-speech, how should <i> and <b> be aurally rendered to the listener? <smile/> Jon Noring
* Jon Noring <jon@noring.name> [2006-04-29 00:30]:> in non-visual presentation, such as text-to-speech, how should > <i> and <b> be aurally rendered to the listener?Generally, not at all. They?re just read out flatly, without any difference from the surrounding text. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Jon Noring wrote:> This begs the interesting rhetorical question: in non-visual > presentation, such as text-to-speech, how should <i> and <b> be > aurally rendered to the listener?>From another list (about writing systems), received -- oddly enough -- justnow ... --------------- Quote from: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/indiana-jones/lucasarts-promises-euphoria-17011 6.php which is apparently a review of a game called "euphoria": "Note that apparently /euphoria/ is properly spelled in lowercase italics. When speaking the name out loud, LucasArts requests that you lean forward approximately twenty degrees." --------------- /Jelks
Jelks Cabaniss wrote:> Jon Noring wrote: > >>This begs the interesting rhetorical question: in non-visual >>presentation, such as text-to-speech, how should <i> and <b> be >>aurally rendered to the listener? > > >>From another list (about writing systems), received -- oddly enough -- just > now ... > > --------------- > Quote from: > > http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/indiana-jones/lucasarts-promises-euphoria-17011 > 6.php > > which is apparently a review of a game called "euphoria": > > "Note that apparently /euphoria/ is properly spelled in lowercase > italics. When speaking the name out loud, LucasArts requests that you > lean forward approximately twenty degrees."... and when reading to the visually impaired (why else would you be reading this out loud) you should mention to the blind person that you _are_ leaning forward approximately twenty degrees ... Sounds like infinite recursion to me. /anton - just another deaf dumb and blind kid ...
* James Bennett <ubernostrum@gmail.com> [2006-04-29 22:20]:> On 4/29/06, Anton J Aylward <aja@si.on.ca> wrote: > >... And pretty soon, to accommodate all this semantics, you > >end up with XML. > > XML is just as powerless to formalize "semantics" as is HTML.Why does everyone use ?semantics? and ?XML? in the same sentence? XML vocabularies may model semantics (DocBook is much finer- grained than XHTML, f.ex.), but XML has no semantics. XML is just syntax. In any case, the sound poem consisting of many variations of ?Oh!?, which is what got us going off on this tangent, would require not accurately modelled semantics, but rather an accurate aural presentation, much like `<b>` and `<i>` are visual presentation. Of course, semantics vs presentation is a big hairball and we?re not going to unravel it in this thread, nor does that have much to do with Markdown. Now, uh, what where we talking about before we got off track?? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Jelks Cabaniss wrote:> "Note that apparently /euphoria/ is properly spelled in lowercase > italics. When speaking the name out loud, LucasArts requests that you > lean forward approximately twenty degrees."What a dumb idea. You should lean your head to the right about 20 degrees, to simulate the text. /anton - who has added learning /euphoria/ to his to-do list to starboard.