Using italic and bold instead of emphasis and strong

[hardbound]

Are there any cases when plain old <i> and <b> should be used instead of em and strong?

[mrmikel]

This is the old presentation vs structure argument. The new fangled ones show where things should be emphasized or strong. The old ones do exactly what they do. You can not be guaranteed that sometime in the future that green frills with polka dots will come into vogue for strong or emphasized!

[Toxaris]

I only use <i> and <b>, since I find that <em> and <strong> are describing what the content is and that is not always the same as the effect I want. To me the fact that <em> is presented in italic is coincidence... I am all for describing the content (like p for paragraph, etc), but then I would also need tags like <thought>, <foreign>, etc to catch all the use cases for <i>, <b>, etc

[Abekonge]

I use <em> and <strong> BUT i do define them in css just so everyone knows what I mean.

em {font-style:italic;}
strong {font-weight:bold;}

or whatever is appropiate according to the @font rules.

[hardbound]

OK, but can you give some examples of the difference?
Bold and strong are basically interchangeable because bold's only function in body text (traditional typography) is to give strong emphasis. Italic, on the other hand, is used both for emphasis and for orthographic conventions (titles, foreign words).

But isn't the main point of emphasis to offer cues for text-to-speech engine? If yes, then should it also emphasise things like titles for easier understanding?

Isn't there some original specification that explains the reasons behind their introduction?

[mrmikel]

Originally Posted by hardbound

Isn't there some original specification that explains the reasons behind their introduction?

Maybe because they were issued by a committee of academics?

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by hardbound

Isn't there some original specification that explains the reasons behind their introduction?

<i> is intended to be italic, for whatever reason.
<em> is intended to be emphasized, in whichever way.

Usually, italic words are italic because they are emphasized, and emphasized words are displayed in italics, so the defaults are the same and they are mostly interchangeable.

Still, there are situations where <em> is not necessarily italic: in typewriter style it could be underlined, in text-to-speech it's definitely not italic (would it be read with an Italian accent or what?).

There is no real danger in using <i> and <b> instead of <em> and <strong>, provided the accompanying CSS is correct. In fact, you could even use <code>, <pre> or <span>, if you modify the default styles, but that would be akin to obfuscating your code.

[BobC]

My thoughts on this are that if you are making an EPUB book from an original printed version then what you see on the original page is either italic or bold, not the concept of strong or emphasis. You might guess why the author chose one form or typeface and you might be right.

On the other hand if you are starting from a clean sheet and are the author of the book then you are in a position to know why you want something in italics, bold or even underlined and can use the semantic approach.

The idea of disconnecting the meaning from the presentation is a good one - it allows for an ebook to be read by say a text-to-speech engine or a braille reader (though this might not be the best example after looking at http://www.brailleauthority.org/form...formats05.html ) but think about it - some readers will render <em> in bold, others in italic; if you want the names of say ships to show up in italics the only sure way is to use <i> (or use css font-style) that way you either get italic or no formatting if the reader doesn't support it.

BobC

[hardbound]

So if I use <em> and <strong>, I must describe them in CSS, unlike <i> and <b>?

[mrmikel]

If you want predictability you have to.

[odedta]

According to the HTML 5 specification, the <b> tag should be used as a LAST resort when no other tag is more appropriate. The HTML 5 specification states that headings should be denoted with the <h1> to <h6> tags, emphasized text should be denoted with the <em> tag, important text should be denoted with the <strong> tag, and marked/highlighted text should use the <mark> tag.

One more fact is that old browsers don't know <strong> and <em>, so basically to be backwards compatible you should use <b> and <i>

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by odedta

One more fact is that old browsers don't know <strong> and <em>, so basically to be backwards compatible you should use <b> and <i>

Old browsers don't understand a lot of things. To be truly backwards compatible would require staying in the 1990's, technology-wise. The solution is much more simple -- install/upgrade any one of the 3 major (free) browsers.

Anyway, what matters more is if any ereaders don't support <strong> and <em>.

[mrmikel]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here that html for browsers equals epub for reading devices. They are NOT the same. Epub2 which is what most devices support includes only a subset of HTML and not HTML5 at all.

An example that pops up immediately just copying web pages is name. Name is not valid in epubs, id is what is used.

What an apple device supports particularly is not the same as what nearly all other devices support. And Hitch, a frequent poster here, and a professional epub maker, has pointed out the Apple's share of the epub market is quite small, so it takes some doing to find out what most devices support most of the time.