[whatwg] contenteditable, <em> and <strong>
fantasai
fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net
Thu Jan 11 00:42:17 PST 2007
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:40, fantasai wrote:
>
>> That depends, actually, on the language. Browsing the Chinese journal
>> section of a university East Asian Library, I noticed that the Chinese
>> journals didn't use normal/italics -- instead they switched the style of
>> font between their equivalents of serif and cursive.
>
> Isn't that a use case for reintroducing <font> with serif mapping to
> mincho and sans-serif mapping to gothic? ;-)
No. It's a use case for the class attribute and style sheets. Style
sheets are *easier*, <font> tags are a *headache*.
>> They have other means of indicating emphasis: various underlining styles,
>
> Is there data on <u> usage on East Asian pages? Should HTML5 legitimize
> <u>? (For Latin pages, a restyled <u> would be more compatible than <m>.)
>
>> bold,
>
> Seems like a case for keeping <b> around.
Bold is mainly used for headings. I haven't seen it used to mark phrases
inline, at least not in print.
>> (in Japanese) a switch to katakana,
>
> Wouldn't a normal Japanese writer enter the text as katakana into the
> document content instead of requesting the UA to transform hiragana or
> even kanji to katakana?
Inasmuch as an English user would enter UPPERCASE instead of using
text-transform, yes.
>> East Asian texts also don't use italics for works titles: they have a
>> set of special punctuation for that.
>
> I hazard a guess that it is more straight-forward, practical and
> compatible to enter that punctuation in the document content than to
> restyle <cite> to insert the punctuation as generated content.
It also is more straight-forward, practical, and compatible
to enter quotes in the document content than to restyle <cite
class="article"> to generate curly quotes.
>> Restyling <i> the same way would just be silly.
>
> From a CSS perspective, there's no difference. If <em> and <i> were
> defined to be semantically equivalent, there'd be no difference from the
> semantic point of view either. That would leave the personal code
> aesthetics that particular hand-coders associate with the identifiers
> "em" and "i". If an author who control both markup and style chooses one
> over the other, that's cool.
If you define <em> and <i> to be equal, then neither of them means "emphasis".
They both mean "italics". And a tag that means "italics" shouldn't, imho,
be restyled to something else because who knows what it's being used for.
> But that's still about site-wide styling. Is it too late for any of this
> to have an impact on the UA style sheet?
>
> Would it be compatible with the Web to add the following to the UA style
> sheets of visual browsers?
>
> em:lang(ja) {
> font-style: normal;
> text-emphasis: accent before;
> }
>
> em:lang(ja-Latn) {
> font-style: italic;
> text-emphasis: none;
> }
I have no idea. It would be an interesting experiment, I suppose, once
text-emphasis is supported in a web browser.
> If that would be compatible with the Web, would the following be?
>
> em:lang(ja), i:lang(ja) {
> font-style: normal;
> text-emphasis: accent before;
> }
>
> em:lang(ja-Latn), i:lang(ja-Latn) {
> font-style: italic;
> text-emphasis: none;
> }
Are you arguing that <i> should mean "emphasis" instead of "italics"?
If so, I disagree...
~fantasai
More information about the whatwg
mailing list