View Single Post
Old 03-29-2016, 12:44 PM   #15
bookman156
Addict
bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 368
Karma: 1000000
Join Date: Mar 2016
Device: none
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer View Post
I don't give parsers any choice in the matter. I use <em> and <strong> semantically, and then use CSS to determine what they look like stylistically.
I think this really is the essence of the issue, and the reason web designers embraced <em> and <strong> against the seeming preference for <i> and <b>. Once the idea was pointed out to them, it made perfect sense to web designers who liked to think about what they were trying to achieve with tableless design and CSS. The ebook business seems to be in this same stage of infancy at the moment that web design was ten years ago, in regards to not really understanding what is semantic markup and what is stylistic markup. The point is to remove the decision from the xhtml and place it in the CSS. In the future, perhaps we will be able to deliver sound stylesheets that specify exactly the kind of emphasis of voice that should be applied, and not be faced with stretching an <i> tag to cover voice, which is why <i> really is bad practice.

Last edited by bookman156; 03-29-2016 at 12:52 PM.
bookman156 is offline   Reply With Quote