Probably a silly queston!

[crutledge]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Of course I can, but that is not the point. I really think that items like <em>, <strong> are misused. They should be used for structure, not layout.

Can someone point me to a For Dummies set of definitions for
STRUCTURE, LAYOUT, FORMAT, STYLE, etc. as used in eBooks. I always seem to use them wrong.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by pietvo

Right, and CSS should be used for layout. So what's the problem? The structure here is "different kinds of emphasis".

Originally the poster asked why Sigil did not use/change the <i> tag to <em> and <b> to </strong>. I just remarked that one is about layout and the other about structure. Two different methods. For structure tags the browser can use any layout it wants. For layout tags the layout is more or less fixed.
So, either use the deprecated <i> and <b> tags or do it in the stylesheet. Avoid <em> and <strong>, unless you want it for the structure instead of the layout.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by crutledge

Can someone point me to a For Dummies set of definitions for
STRUCTURE, LAYOUT, FORMAT, STYLE, etc. as used in eBooks. I always seem to use them wrong.

Here's an overview of the basic concepts.

[pietvo]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Originally the poster asked why Sigil did not use/change the <i> tag to <em> and <b> to </strong>.

Where did you read that? The original question was about how to get rid of the "sgc-" CSS entries. Actually italics or bold weren't even mentioned there. <i> was mentioned in passing in a later post and <b> wasn't even mentioned at all.

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Avoid <em> and <strong>, unless you want it for the structure instead of the layout.

I think most uses of bold and italics are for structure, to put some kind of emphasis in the text. Although I would think the word 'structure' is a bit too strong for the concepts of <em> and <strong>.

[weatherwax]

Originally Posted by crutledge

Can someone point me to a For Dummies set of definitions for
STRUCTURE, LAYOUT, FORMAT, STYLE, etc. as used in eBooks. I always seem to use them wrong.

I take it that epub applies the same rules as HTML, there are some quite good online resources for html, w3schools would be a good place to start.

According to w3c one should use em, cite, dfn when possible (or appropriate) and otherwise styles but avoid i and b.

Sigil always replaces inline styles with style sheets. Normally I replace the sgc-x styles with reelvant ones used in my main style sheet and delete the Sigil Style sheet.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by pietvo

Where did you read that?

Post number 8. I did not say original poster did I?

Originally Posted by pietvo

I think most uses of bold and italics are for structure, to put some kind of emphasis in the text. Although I would think the word 'structure' is a bit too strong for the concepts of <em> and <strong>.

Probably, because a big number of people do not seem to see the difference between structure and layout. I agree that it is not as obvious as for example <p> or <h1>, but it still is structure.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by weatherwax

I take it that epub applies the same rules as HTML, there are some quite good online resources for html, w3schools would be a good place to start.

According to w3c one should use em, cite, dfn when possible (or appropriate) and otherwise styles but avoid i and b.

Sigil always replaces inline styles with style sheets. Normally I replace the sgc-x styles with reelvant ones used in my main style sheet and delete the Sigil Style sheet.

Actually, ePUB follows the more strict rules of XHTML. The link is still a good place to start. I know that w3c advises to avoid <i> and <b>, but I feel (and I am fortunately not alone in that) that they are wrong there.

I also always replaces the sgc-x styles. Usually I have an appropriate style already available, making the change easy.