<i>, <em> or <span> for italics ?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Jellby

<i> just means "this is italic". You can change it, but that is still what it means. It is direct formatting, like clicking the "I" button in Word.

<em> means "this is emphasized". It's usually rendered by default in italics, and you can change it. It still means it's emphasized. You can make it look like the surrounding text. It still means it's emphasized, even if you can't see it. It is like applying a style in Word (with the italics property enabled by default).

Tex2002ans had a very good example of how they can be used differently:

<p>In <i>Book Title</i>, the character screamed: “Not in <em>my</em> neighborhood!”</p>

"Book Title" is in italics because it's a book title, it's not used for any kind of emphasis. One could also have used <span class="book_title">Book Title</span>. Animal and ship names are often set in italics, without any emphasis being implied.

"my" is in italics because it's emphasized. If you read it aloud you'd give it a special intonation.

They are two different things that by default look the same, but it doesn't mean they always have to look the same.

You would give the my a special intonation even if it was <i>my</i>. There is NO WAY to differentiate from <i> or <em> when you cannot see the code and both are italic.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You would give the my a special intonation even if it was <i>my</i>. There is NO WAY to differentiate from <i> or <em> when you cannot see the code and both are italic.

Certain languages/books/styles use smallcaps as emphasis or extended letter-spacing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis_(typography)

Different languages also use different symbols (see Chinese example in link above).

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You would give the my a special intonation even if it was <i>my</i>. There is NO WAY to differentiate from <i> or <em> when you cannot see the code and both are italic.

Exactly! Which is why you may want to differentiate them in the code.

It seems you are assuming that the only purpose of the code is to make it look italic. It is not.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Exactly! Which is why you may want to differentiate them in the code.

It seems you are assuming that the only purpose of the code is to make it look italic. It is not.

But you do not use <em> for letter spacing, small caps, color, underline, etc. You use spans with a class.

Do you have an example of <em> being used other then to show italics where a span is not normally used?

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Exactly! Which is why you may want to differentiate them in the code.

It seems you are assuming that the only purpose of the code is to make it look italic. It is not.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you have an example of <em> being used other then to show italics where a span is not normally used?

See 2017 post. See my examples above.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Exactly.



See 2017 post. See my examples above.

Link?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But you do not use <em> for letter spacing, small caps, color, underline, etc. You use spans with a class.

You keep focusing on writing with intent to control rendering rather than writing to express, when rendering is supposed to be up to renderers and users of renderers.

Do you have an example of <em> being used other then to show italics where a span is not normally used?

In a color enabled terminal, the text output HTML renderer lynx uses a different color to render text enclosed in <em></em>.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Link?

Detailed links to 2017 thread just a few posts ago:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...68#post4001968

Originally Posted by j.p.s

In a color enabled terminal, the text output HTML renderer lynx uses a different color to render text enclosed in <em></em>.

Thanks for another example.

Complete Side Note: I don't know... in my eyes, Lynx is looking more and more favorable by the day.

All these incessant "cookie popups" have driven me to get stricter and stricter with my blocking. (Few months ago wrote a Reddit post explaining how/what lists I use.)

Bloated/meaningless images on sites has led me block all images >30KBs (loadable on click if needed OR I can enable on a page-by-page basis).

But the absolute worst of the worst lately are auto-playing videos that scroll as you scroll down... Chrome/Firefox have been trying to introduce play-on-click, but so many of these sites implement videos in ways that don't follow those settings. (Don't know if those browser auto-playing settings work only on HTML5 <video> or what.)

I've also blocked all Javascript and whitelist on a site-by-site basis, but some of these disgusting videos still get through...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

You keep focusing on writing with intent to control rendering rather than writing to express, when rendering is supposed to be up to renderers and users of renderers.

In a color enabled terminal, the text output HTML renderer lynx uses a different color to render text enclosed in <em></em>.

This is not a good idea to have <em> be a different color with eInk.

It doesn't matter what the intent is if the output doesn't show differently. How many people are going to look at the code to see if you used <i> or <em> for the italics? Plus, I've seen a number of eBooks that used <em> for italics.

I've seen no examples of <em> doing something different other then be italic. And Lynx is not an eBook renderer.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Detailed links to 2017 thread just a few posts ago:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...68#post4001968



Thanks for another example.

Complete Side Note: I don't know... in my eyes, Lynx is looking more and more favorable by the day.

All these incessant "cookie popups" have driven me to get stricter and stricter with my blocking. (Few months ago wrote a Reddit post explaining how/what lists I use.)

Bloated/meaningless images on sites has led me block all images >30KBs (loadable on click if needed OR I can enable on a page-by-page basis).

But the absolute worst of the worst lately are auto-playing videos that scroll as you scroll down... Chrome/Firefox have been trying to introduce play-on-click, but so many of these sites implement videos in ways that don't follow those settings. (Don't know if those browser auto-playing settings work only on HTML5 <video> or what.)

I've also blocked all Javascript and whitelist on a site-by-site basis, but some of these disgusting videos still get through...

Don't laugh. I am now using Chromium Edge for mySAAS--I don't know WTH has happened with Chrome, but it slows so badly during the day I literally cannot use it--but I'm using Lynx for my personal browsing. I mean, sorry, websites, but I'm not a gerbil that needs to be constantly assaulted with videos, pretty colors, flying whatevers, banners, ads...enough!

I HATE those damn auto-playing videos!

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Don't laugh. I am now using Chromium Edge for mySAAS--I don't know WTH has happened with Chrome, but it slows so badly during the day I literally cannot use it--but I'm using Lynx for my personal browsing. I mean, sorry, websites, but I'm not a gerbil that needs to be constantly assaulted with videos, pretty colors, flying whatevers, banners, ads...enough!

I HATE those damn auto-playing videos!

Hitch

Even worse is those auto-playing videos that when you are not focused on them, you get a little video show up on top of other content.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It doesn't matter what the intent is if the output doesn't show differently. How many people are going to look at the code to see if you used <i> or <em> for the italics?

The intent is the entire point of having proper markup.

It's up to you to mark the INTENT properly:

"Is this a paragraph?"
"Is this italics or emphasis?"
"Is this a blockquote?"

then leave it up to the renderer to render it properly.

Also, it's really baffling... you are the same person who insists on cleaning up "Really bad CSS" and other dirty code like <div class="p"> to <p>... even insisting on removing "meaningless code" like <p class="indent"> and making them simple <p>.

Why not apply similar logic to <i>/<em>... and all the other HTML markup?

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've seen no examples of <em> doing something different other then be italic.

Look at the Wikipedia article on emphasis. Asian languages do not have italics.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And Lynx is not an eBook renderer.

It's an HTML renderer.

And whenever your questions do get answered, you shouldn't just change the goalposts, come up with one-sentence quips, then stick your fingers in your ears for 3 years and continue saying nobody has ever shown you any counterexamples...

Only ADE/RMSDK exist. Only <i> exists. Only bare <p> exist. Other languages‽ What's that? I only read English. Everything else is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Hitch

Don't laugh. I am now using Chromium Edge for mySAAS--I don't know WTH has happened with Chrome, but it slows so badly during the day I literally cannot use it--but I'm using Lynx for my personal browsing.

I've been using Firefox forever.

I begrudgingly use Chrome in very few cases. What's bothering me is they are now turning into the new IE. Many sites are now working only in Chrome/Chromium, and sites are throwing standards out the window for the bleeding-edge proprietary "but it works in Chrome".

(And now Chrome has been trying cripple plugin functionality to kill off adblockers...)

Originally Posted by Hitch

I mean, sorry, websites, but I'm not a gerbil that needs to be constantly assaulted with videos, pretty colors, flying whatevers, banners, ads...enough!

Yeah, I'm kind of reaching that point. I remember telling you when I implemented the image/font blocking... you told me to go full-on text-only with Lynx.

Those scrolling videos might just be my tipping point. At least on Desktop it's "bearable"... but on Mobile... mother of god...

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Wordprocessor bells, whistles, features and bugs are irrelevant for discussing how XHTML+CSS in ebooks should/could look like.

In an absolute sense true. But if the aim is to automatically go from Wordprocessor source to ebook via a conversion tool (such as Calibre rather than Indesign or Sigil or Amazon something which are more like DTP for ebooks), then what you want is styles and characters that consistently convert to the same sensible XHTML+CSS.

[Quoth]

No, I do get what the difference between <i> and <em> is. I think I'd not use <em> much, but unless I can do wordprocessor source that causes <em>some text</em> to be created, there will only be <i>. Similarly with <b> and <strong>.

Unless I outsource final ebook creation to someone else. Then I suppose I can use a character style for <em> and one for <strong> and tell the ebook making guru what those mean. Not sure how I'd do that without different versions for each paragraph style. Some experimenting needed.

Of course the Interobang has never caught on. I've only seen it ever on the Internet in articles discussing it and in ONE book covering punctuation. I've not seen it in any ebook, or any printed novel ever.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Quoth

No, I do get what the difference between <i> and <em> is. I think I'd not use <em> much, but unless I can do wordprocessor source that causes <em>some text</em> to be created, there will only be <i>. Similarly with <b> and <strong>.

Yes, exactly. Speaking as a formatted, how the hell would I know which emphasized "i" text from Word is meant to be italics, and which are meant to be "emphasized" as in em? Jesus wept!

Unless I outsource final ebook creation to someone else. Then I suppose I can use a character style for <em> and one for <strong> and tell the ebook making guru what those mean. Not sure how I'd do that without different versions for each paragraph style. Some experimenting needed.

AND, if that happens, if someone who actually uses Word correctly creates a named style, it will emerge from formatting as a p style or a span, and there endeth the problem.

Of course the Interobang has never caught on. I've only seen it ever on the Internet in articles discussing it and in ONE book covering punctuation. I've not seen it in any ebook, or any printed novel ever.

And...in which fonts would we find that, she wondered‽ In my world, lads and ladies, if the character doesn't exist in fonts, it might as well be a Unicorn.

Hitch