View Single Post
Old 03-30-2016, 01:52 AM   #42
Toxaris
Wizard
Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Toxaris ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Toxaris's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,520
Karma: 121692313
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Heemskerk, NL
Device: PRS-T1, Kobo Touch, Kobo Aura
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookman156 View Post
Of course, people will inevitably fall back into the lazy use of the <em> tag, thinking of it as a better italic tag, and so using <em> to get italic for book titles when they should be using <cite>. No-one's perfect. But head-in-the-sandness never helps.
And that is not right either. A title is not the same as a citation, so the use of <cite> would also not be correct and not better than <i>. Here you will use the wrong semantics.
The current standard only knows a limited set of semantic tags. I do agree that it is better to split semantics/structure from layout. However, <i> and <b> can mean so much more than <em> or <strong>. So much, that actually the 'emphasis' or 'strong' would not be suitable at all. To fully replace that by semantics, you would need a whole lot more. So, you would need to resort to stylesheet classes to give the semantic value to the actual text.
Toxaris is offline   Reply With Quote