It's there in black and white in the specs
<b> and <i> used because no prior completely agreed markup. Maps to Bold and Italic fontface variations.
At a later date (maybe HTML 4 release) they decided <strong> and <em> to replace <b> and <i>, i.e. <b> and <i> were depreciated. The <em> should have stood for Emphatic speech. In lists and and narration it's called emphasis when you make a word bold.
Then on a later spec (Maybe HTML 5) obviously been pointed out that it was a pointless changes so they wrote <b> and <i> are NOT depreciated, but the <strong> and <em> are semantically different. This is total nonsense and pure face saving because:
Quote:
Reasons writers indicate or use italics (markup is _ or / surrounding word)
1. Obsolete: Italics for a foreign word.
2. Obsolete: thoughts. (Using quote marks for thoughts is against many style guides too)
3. Letters quoted
4. Obsolete: Quotes, now usually a more indented style
5. Telepathic conversation: Almost universal in SF & F for over 50 years.
6. Very rarely just empathic word in dialogue, almost never as emphasis in narration.
So if you don't know the author's intent mostly <i> is correct. In the thousands of printed novels I have and larger number read I've hardly seen any use of italics that would be emphasis and only in dialogue. I'm sure anyone can cherry pick examples.
Bold vs Strong
Again no Author considers this. From typewriter days to now using Bold is indicated by *this is bold*, sometimes by _and_ or underling on a typewriter. I don't remember any font face called Strong.
Most style guides suggest Boldface is only used for titles and headings. Sometimes it's been used to indicate shouting, but that's very rare.
|
Bold can be used for emphasis outside of doing a heading for a single word in narration, legal document or list for emphasis.
The whole semantic claim is nonsense and a recon to try and justify an earlier spec depreciating <b> and <i> for <strong> and <em>.
Additionally I've never seen the semantic difference used. The big publishers doing ebooks or web sites will completely use <b> or <strong> for all bold and completely use <i> or <em> for italic.
Real semantic need of <strong> or <em> rather than generic "
I want this bold" and "
I want this italic" is rare and which word processor has any support for it?
Quote:
|
I've never heard a human read audiobook have different ways of saying something that's bold or italic.
|
I have, but only very rarely in dialogue for italic and it doesn't matter
Scene 1967
"You are grounded if you go out in
that mini-skirt and
those lacy tights!"
"
Really, Mum? You and whose army? I'm twenty-two and pay the rent!"
I can't even remember the last time I read a book with dialogue with italics as Emphatic speech. In Ireland the pitch and volume would rise.
And I do read both YA and "grown up" Romances & so called Chic Lit. Adult has the wrong connotations in this context.
I've read the posts on this here for years, always quoting the HTML 5 spec. It's 14 years old with revisions.
HTML 4 versions 1997 to 2000
I think Mobi/KF& is roughly HTML 3
First version about 1990.
HTML / W3C is not in charge of deciding how English Language publishing should be done or what is in style guides. It exists so browsers work with web sites and some stage absorbed epub.
Wordprocessors have had 20 years to implement <em> and <strong> but don't because it's nonsense. Fourteen years ago they decided <em> vs <i> and <strong> vs <b> is semantics.
It's not to do with accessibility! Alt text for images is.