The bold and italic buttons on the bar

Artha · 12-01-2011, 03:18 AM

I have noticed that hitting in Book View or Split View (otherwise they're disabled anyway) the Bold button leads to instead of and Italic leads to . On the other hand it is taken care to be compliant and if there's a larger block that has to be changed there's a a style inserted in the header of that particular file defining the bold or italic status. Also, care has been given to clean up the tag mess from textextra to add the extra tags and nest them correctly into the paragraph block. So why the Bold and Italic?

shall1028 · 12-01-2011, 03:33 AM

Sorry---I read your post twice and still can't figure out what you are asking. Perhaps you could read it twice more and see if you can come up with a better way to phrase it.

I'll try to at least answer the stated question, though: "So why the Bold and Italic?" Because "Timid" and "Germanic" doesn't quite seem right.

Artha · 12-01-2011, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shall1028

Sorry---I read your post twice and still can't figure out what you are asking. Perhaps you could read it twice more and see if you can come up with a better way to phrase it.

I'll point it out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

[...] the Bold button leads to instead of and Italic leads to .[...]

Quote:

I'll try to at least answer the stated question, though: "So why the Bold and Italic?" Because "Timid" and "Germanic" doesn't quite seem right.

Thank you for your effort to be witty. And thank the programmers of this forum for the ignore option.

user_none · 12-01-2011, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

I'll point it out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

[...] the Bold button leads to instead of and Italic leads to .[...]

Okay? You're point? is an italic tag. is a bold tag. is for strong emphasis. What do you expect bold and italic to do other than make text bold and italic? Your question really isn't clear...

meme · 12-01-2011, 07:43 AM

Well, I'm not sure about the second part, but for the first part I think Artha is asking why does Sigil use when selecting a subset of words in a paragraph/division and hitting the bold button, but uses an sgc class in the header when selecting the whole paragraph/division to mark bold. Why doesn't it always use the class approach?

(On an unrelated note, this just reminded me that bold/italic/underline confuse me on occassion

- have you considered making the labels B / I / U ?)

user_none · 12-01-2011, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meme

Well, I'm not sure about the second part, but for the first part I think Artha is asking why does Sigil use when selecting a subset of words in a paragraph/division and hitting the bold button, but uses an sgc class in the header when selecting the whole paragraph/division to mark bold. Why doesn't it always use the class approach?

This is a product of what Tidy does to the XHTML when it cleans it. The only way to change this is to modify Tidy (not a fun prospect).

meme · 12-01-2011, 08:37 AM

Yes, its easy to see this by selecting Tools -> Cleaning with HTML Tidy to uncheck it and then highlighting a paragraph and selecting the Bold button - the html is left as . And when checking the Tidy setting the code is modified to a class as soon as you change something in the document.

Toxaris · 12-01-2011, 12:59 PM

What I think Artha also wants to know why instead of and instead of . Actually I am glad that it is this way. Let me explain. and are style settings. and are giving structure. It could be that I will use italic for emphasis, but this is not a given. I should decide what I would use if text is emphasized or strong, not the renderer.
I know that and I believe also are deprecated, but I feel that was a mistake.

JSWolf · 12-01-2011, 01:07 PM

and are just and by another name.

Serpentine · 12-01-2011, 01:49 PM

Can't say I remember anything saying that tags have been deprecated. I prefer them much more than , as semantically - what should emphasized text look like? to me it's bold or underlined rather than italicized.

I do get pretty annoyed when they're replaced by spans or 'cleaned' to other tags, they're not exactly used ambiguously very often :/

Artha · 12-01-2011, 05:13 PM

The same way <center> was removed from the specifications also and should go away. They mark a particular way of showing things. And that is up to the CSS. So far defaults to on all browsers I have tested and to . On the other hand styling to show red regular text on a blue background looks more like an abuse.

Serpentine · 12-01-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

On the other hand styling to show red regular text on a blue background looks more like an abuse.

You could say that about anything, it's a very narrow minded approach. Most software that deals with mixed xhtml has no way to deal with CSS, browsers are not the only consumers of xhtml. Consider a simple script using xpath or regex, DOM?. Most readers that support any advanced CSS are just reusing browser components, if they arn't they are either crippled like Kindle or extremely buggy. Abuse can happen to any tag, should tables be removed because they're used by some people for layouts? should p's be replaced with divs?

Clean markup is far, far nicer to work with than verbose CSS use.

But hey, I guess we can enjoy the future of 'webkit in everything', urgh.

user_none · 12-01-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

The same way <center> was removed from the specifications also and should go away.

and are part of XHTML (EPUB2) and they made it into HTML5 (EPUB3). Also they are not marked as deprecated in either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

They mark a particular way of showing things. And that is up to the CSS.

That is entirely how you want to look at it. The fact of the matter and are valid tags for adding italic and bold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artha

So far defaults to on all browsers I have tested and to .

This is how many browsers render the tags but had different meaning than and has different meaning than . See descriptions for b, strong, i, and em to see that each of these has a distinct meaning.

 for example does not guarantee italic text it only says that the test should be emphasized. The meaning of emphasized is up to the renderer. Now quoting the description for :

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.december.com/html/x1/element/em.html

Nesting an em inside of another element like b or i may or may not display bold, emphasized text.

So, again, using does not guarantee that the text will be italic. Hence the use of the which specifically denotes the text should be italic.

Toxaris · 12-02-2011, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by user_none

This is how many browsers render the tags but had different meaning than and has different meaning than . See descriptions for b, strong, i, and em to see that each of these has a distinct meaning.

 for example does not guarantee italic text it only says that the test should be emphasized. The meaning of emphasized is up to the renderer. Now quoting the description for :

So, again, using does not guarantee that the text will be italic. Hence the use of the which specifically denotes the text should be italic.

John, thank you! Exactly the point I was trying to make. There is a difference between style and structure.

ghostyjack · 12-04-2011, 01:09 PM

And I thought I was the only one who see's a need for both & and & .

I routinely utilise all of them, depending on if it is symantic or document structure. This way I can better control the file.

e.g. a ship name needs to be in italics as you are not emphasising the name. So I'd expect a sentence to be like: "This is not HMS Warspite." This way I can immediately see which elements are being stressed, and which are structure.

So for me, bold and italic buttons need to be using bold and italic tags. I'd also like to have emphasis and strong buttons as well in Sigil, so that I can directly apply the correct tag instead of having the scan the file afterwards and may the switch to the other tags where needed.

On a side note, John, is there any likelyhood that the buttons will ever be made to work in code view?

12-01-2011, 03:18 AM	#1
Artha ----- Posts: 114 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jun 2011 Device: Samsung SNE65	The bold and italic buttons on the bar I have noticed that hitting in Book View or Split View (otherwise they're disabled anyway) the Bold button leads to <b> instead of <strong> and Italic leads to <i>. On the other hand it is taken care to be compliant and if there's a larger block that has to be changed there's a a style inserted in the header of that particular file defining the bold or italic status. Also, care has been given to clean up the tag mess from <p><em>text</p><p>extra</em></p> to add the extra <em> tags and nest them correctly into the paragraph block. So why the Bold and Italic?

12-01-2011, 07:43 AM	#5
meme Sigil developer Posts: 1,274 Karma: 1101600 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Device: Kindle PW, K4 NT, K3, Kobo Touch	Well, I'm not sure about the second part, but for the first part I think Artha is asking why does Sigil use <b></b> when selecting a subset of words in a paragraph/division and hitting the bold button, but uses an sgc class in the header when selecting the whole paragraph/division to mark bold. Why doesn't it always use the class approach? (On an unrelated note, this just reminded me that bold/italic/underline confuse me on occassion - have you considered making the labels B / I / U ?)

12-01-2011, 08:37 AM	#7
meme Sigil developer Posts: 1,274 Karma: 1101600 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Device: Kindle PW, K4 NT, K3, Kobo Touch	Yes, its easy to see this by selecting Tools -> Cleaning with HTML Tidy to uncheck it and then highlighting a paragraph and selecting the Bold button - the html is left as <b></b>. And when checking the Tidy setting the code is modified to a class as soon as you change something in the document.

12-01-2011, 12:59 PM	#8
Toxaris Wizard Posts: 4,520 Karma: 121692313 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Heemskerk, NL Device: PRS-T1, Kobo Touch, Kobo Aura	What I think Artha also wants to know why <i> instead of <em> and <b> instead of <strong>. Actually I am glad that it is this way. Let me explain. <i> and <b> are style settings. <em> and <strong> are giving structure. It could be that I will use italic for emphasis, but this is not a given. I should decide what I would use if text is emphasized or strong, not the renderer. I know that <i> and I believe also <b> are deprecated, but I feel that was a mistake.

12-01-2011, 01:07 PM	#9
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 80,727 Karma: 150249619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	<em> and <strong> are just <i> and <b> by another name.

12-01-2011, 03:33 AM	#2
shall1028 Nameless Being	Sorry---I read your post twice and still can't figure out what you are asking. Perhaps you could read it twice more and see if you can come up with a better way to phrase it. I'll try to at least answer the stated question, though: "So why the Bold and Italic?" Because "Timid" and "Germanic" doesn't quite seem right.

12-01-2011, 01:49 PM	#10
Serpentine Evangelist Posts: 416 Karma: 1045911 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Cape Town, South Africa Device: Kindle 3	Can't say I remember anything saying that <i> tags have been deprecated. I prefer them much more than <em>, as semantically - what should emphasized text look like? to me it's bold or underlined rather than italicized. I do get pretty annoyed when they're replaced by spans or 'cleaned' to other tags, they're not exactly used ambiguously very often :/

12-01-2011, 05:13 PM	#11
Artha ----- Posts: 114 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jun 2011 Device: Samsung SNE65	The same way <center> was removed from the specifications also <i> and <b> should go away. They mark a particular way of showing things. And that is up to the CSS. So far <em> defaults to <i> on all browsers I have tested and <strong> to <b>. On the other hand styling <i> to show red regular text on a blue background looks more like an abuse.

12-04-2011, 01:09 PM	#15
ghostyjack Guru Posts: 718 Karma: 1085610 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Bristol, England Device: PRS-T1, 1825PT, Galaxy Tab, One X, TF700T, Aura HD, Nexus 7	And I thought I was the only one who see's a need for both <i> & <em> and <b> & <strong>. I routinely utilise all of them, depending on if it is symantic or document structure. This way I can better control the file. e.g. a ship name needs to be in italics as you are not emphasising the name. So I'd expect a sentence to be like: "This is <em>not</em> HMS <i>Warspite</i>." This way I can immediately see which elements are being stressed, and which are structure. So for me, bold and italic buttons need to be using bold and italic tags. I'd also like to have emphasis and strong buttons as well in Sigil, so that I can directly apply the correct tag instead of having the scan the file afterwards and may the switch to the other tags where needed. On a side note, John, is there any likelyhood that the buttons will ever be made to work in code view?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Italic or Emphasis	John2011	ePub	18	08-18-2011 12:14 PM
italic and bold ok in sigil but not on Kobo reader	Mookiemon	Sigil	14	07-23-2011 09:50 PM
Re Entering Title in Bold or Bold And Colour Font	pricespringer	Library Management	1	05-09-2011 04:45 AM
italic, bold etc to normal	cybmole	Sigil	11	03-04-2011 10:37 AM
PRS-500 Tags for Bold, Italic, Center, Etc. in LRF?	EatingPie	Sony Reader Dev Corner	9	04-07-2007 01:06 AM