The end of "THE END"?

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Sure, why not. Nobody has yet to come up with a TTS that reads <em> and different then <i>. So why bloat the code with <em> when <i> will do perfectly well?

As you say, things haven’t changed…. So there is no need for yet another argument from you about this topic. Just re-read the dozen or so other threads where you say the same thing…

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by graycyn

Should I get rid of "THE END" in a vintage text?

One word:

No.

THE END!

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Sure, why not. Nobody has yet to come up with a TTS that reads <em> and different then <i>. So why bloat the code with <em> when <i> will do perfectly well?

I linked to many (and many) within the DAISY Consortium's videos.

Also, actual screen readers:

• JAWS
• NVDA

already can—and do—distinguish between <i> + <em>.

They can also handle multiple languages in the HTML lang as well! (So can Thorium Reader!)

Just because most e-readers are limited on this emphasis/language stuff, doesn't mean you have to keep insisting every single ebook you create not follow the standards according to the best of your ability.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by graycyn

There is this little phenomenon where technology continues to develop as years pass ... you know, once upon a time, we had no reason to discuss this issue, because THERE WERE NO EBOOKS or EREADERS and HTML5 did not exist yet.

By the way, TTS can, in some apps, actually pronounce foreign language words correctly if they are marked up with the appropriate language. So it's not *that* far of a jump to think that eventually, TTS/screen readers could emphasize a word as well.

If I want to take the time to create better semantics, why not? Who, exactly, does it harm? The average reader could care less about the code and it's not even that much bloat!

How would you read <i> and <em> differently anyway when they are both needing to be read so you get the idea it's italicized?

[Quoth]

But Authors write the content and most never edit HTML.
How do you know the author's semantic intent?
There are many reasons (some obsolete) and style guides about why an author puts italics or bold. There are also two common ways each for italic and bold to be indicated by an author using a typewriter (from Victorian era till authors could afford wordprocessing in 1970s, but still used in plain text on editors).

Perhaps this is a heretical position, but almost no author will differentiate between <i> and <em>
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. It's now preferred to use ALL CAPS for shouting. Not usually SMALL CAPS as they are specialist.

People formulating HTML specs came up with <em> and <strong> and depreciated <i> and <b>. Then they said you can use <i> and <b> but the difference is semantics. Did they ask newspapers, publishers, authors, creators of style guides?

Underline
There is a <u> tag.
Originally this was to indicate bold or a heading on typewriters or CRTs with no bold (shown as brighter on older terminals). As it's obsolete if you have bold on print or display it was chosen even before HTML was invented to indicate a hyperlink. Hyperlinks and text proposed in 1960s and used about 5 years before 1989 HTML draft. Style guides are now against it and suggest using boid.

Strikeout
<s>, <strike> or <del>?
Originally the hyphen on a typewriter served for minus or hyphen. Two meant substitute en dash and three an em dash. UK and US style guide will differ; UK uses a spaced – en dash – for an aside (when it's more appropriate than commas or true parenthesis). The US tends to use an un-spaced em dash—for an aside—in text. Both will use the em dash to indicate cut-off or interrupted speech
“I don’t think—”
“No! You never do!"

Originally struck out text was never in published material, it was only markup on a typewriter indicating to typesetter/publisher or copy typist to leave out (delete) the word. Style guides suggest it should only be used in publishing when an insert is mimicking a typewritten text. Sometimes used to indicate what the writer first thought of. Since the invention of correction systems on typewriters and editing on screens the strikeout is only used for decorative means of showing an abandoned word or idea.

HTML <strike> Tag
Not Supported in HTML5.

The <strike> tag was used in HTML 4 to define strikethrough text.
What to use instead?

Example
Use the <del> tag to define deleted text:
<p>My favorite color is <del>blue</del> <ins>red</ins>!</p>

Example
Use the <s> tag to mark up text that is no longer correct:
<p><s>My car is blue.</s></p>

The <del> and <s> distinction is thus nearly useless. Real authors, writers, journalists don't usually edit HTML. Extremely rarely, for the reason of indicating a change of mind the author wants a struck out word.

The Real World
Most writing is done with a wordprocessor. If the author chooses bold or italic for whatever reason, the automatic conversion to an ebook or web page will use <b> and <i>, annd bold faced or italic faced fonts are rendered. Though usually bold is only part of a heading style.
The underline decoration is automatic styling on wordprocessor for links which in HTML are links with no decoration style.
The Strikeout is incredibly rare.

If the entire paragraph is a bold or italic style the automatic conversion doesn't use <b> or <i> but font-weight: bold; and font-style: italic; in the CSS. If it's part of a normal paragraph then <b> and <i> are used

The <s> vs <strike> vs <del> is moot. No matter if an entire styled paragraph or a word only a <p style="whatever"> or <span style="something" is used. The CSS then has text-decoration: line-through;

Underline generates a style in CSS text-decoration: underline; never any inline HTML tags; only a <p style="whatever"> or <span style="something" is used depending on if a paragraph or word.

<em>, <strong>, <u>, <s>, <strike> and <del> don't seem to ever be used in any automated conversion of wordprocess to ebook or HTML if the conversion is using CSS.

So in the real world for novelists, journalists, report writers etc the arguments about semantics and which tags to use are irrelevant.

Few people creating actual written content hand craft HTML. It's produced by imports CMS, Indesign, Calibre, Sigil etc. Or by the modern equivalent of typesetters editing HTML & CSS, but how do they know the authors intention?

Most TTS is on phones or tablets. Is it going to make much difference if <i> vs <em> or <b> vs <strong> is used?
The <s> vs <del> argument seems irrelevant.
Underlines should only be automatic and for links. They originated due to lack of visible bold on a screen or typewriter.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Most TTS is on phones or tablets. Is it going to make much difference if <i> vs <em> or <b> vs <strong> is used?

Yes, see standards.

Originally Posted by Quoth

The <s> vs <del> argument seems irrelevant.

Agree, but see standards.

Originally Posted by Quoth

Underlines should only be automatic and for links. They originated due to lack of visible bold on a screen or typewriter.

No, they are used for styling too.

Nice and interesting historical perspective. However, historical inability to perform a function does not mean we can’t use that functionality today. The different uses just proves that current standards are needed to be followed so that deficient automated software can be updated and perform as needed.

Again, this has all been discussed ad nauseum in multiple other threads…. Nothing new to see here. Move along.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

No, they are used for styling too.

Nice and interesting historical perspective. However, historical inability to perform a function does not mean we can’t use that functionality today. The different uses just proves that current standards are needed to be followed so that deficient automated software can be updated and perform as needed.

Again, this has all been discussed ad nauseum in multiple other threads…. Nothing new to see here. Move along.

It's ALL styling. But you are missing the point because most if not all of these standards are being created by people involved with Browser design.

Not people actually writing. Not the real publishing industry. These Web orientated have a hyper-focus on arguments and thus standards that are largely irrelevant to the content creators.

I've followed all the previous arguments on this for some years and thus decided to present a writer's viewpoint, not the view of those directly editing HTML or designing web browsers.

It was a mistake that epub was subsumed into W3C / HTML standards group. The focus of epub3 was a missed opportunity. The HTML5 and multimedia is largely irrelevant to producing electronic reflowable versions of texts also used for paper books and better done with either a browser on a device or an app.

My aim was to show that most of the argumentative post on this subject in the last few years misses the point with the focus on a mostly hypothetical concept TTS & Accessibility and standards invented by people focused on building web browsers. I've used TTS on PCs since mid 1980s, DOS, XP, Win7, Win 10, Linux. Tested DXG, PW3 and two different speech engines on Android. The pocketbook app on Android 5 using Google or the other engine is the best I've heard. Better than Pocketbook on Android 10. I've compared the same book (that has only <b> and <i>, no <em> or <strong> using TTS and human narrator. There is no issue with <b> and <i>. The books I've tried have the German, Irish and French parts marked.
I used to use the DXG to test how Americans might pronounce Irish and made up words and names.
Far bigger issue than bold or italics (which isn't an issue at all) is punctuation clues in dialogue rarely used (Only Pocketbook on the Huawei Android 5 phone) and of course zero serious parsing of speech tags.

In the DOS era & 1991 I even experimented with speech chips and DOS drivers that could use special markup. That works for a vending machine or other appliance better than any current TTS, but not practical for books.

Google's latest effort at automatically made Audiobooks won't replace humans for quality publishing, nor does it care about <i> vs <em> or <b> vs <strong> apart from the fact that almost all submitted content only has <i> and <b> as that's all you ever get starting with MS Word or LO Writer. Writers, even if SP, don't usually edit HTML.

Anyway, I've submitted my heresy and running off to avoid being burnt at the HTML5 <stake> by Kool aid drinkers tinkering with Google Chrome.

Accessibility is important. Like alt text for images that's a real description and not a caption. Anyone can do that in MS Word or LO Writer.

[Turtle91]

Styling is a big part of it, but so is semantics...it's not ALL styling.

Historically - authors aren't too concerned about piddlin' little things like promotions, grammar, punctuation, spelling, conciseness, story continuity, etc. let alone font size and other stylistic issues. That is what the editor/publisher was paid to do.

Regardless of whether the author cares about this stuff, this stuff is there, and there are standards for their use.

I understand that 98% of people currently don't use accessibility functions but who knows if the next version of Covid will make 98% of the Earth's population blind (wasn't there a movie about that?) in the next 5 years....

The point is, publishers should be following the standards for publishing, whether they are a big publisher or an indie author. "We've always done it that way" or "We're a big publisher so we don't care about xxxx" or "Typewriter's historically didn't have the ability to xxxxx" isn't really a valid reason to NOT follow the standard.

[Quoth]

No, the <em>, <strong>, <s>, <del>, and <ins> are pure web browser driven specs and absolutely not needed for accessibility. I compared with human read text.

A publisher can't know what the writer's intention was, any more than an HMTL tweaker of ebooks, and I proved it doesn't matter, because the <i> and <b> work fine. The accessibility issues are elsewhere. You've swallowed propaganda. The Browser heads deprecated <i> and <b> for <em> and <strong> and then un-deprecated them and saved face by writing the difference is semantics.

These are not real publishing standards or real accessibility. Putting meaningful alt text for images is a real thing.

<s> vs <del> isn't semantics. The <s> should never be used, but CSS decoration and <del> and <ins> are not semantic variations, they are specialist use.

Underline should only be CSS decoration and is obsolete, replaced by bold in style guides. Should be reserved for links, where it's automatically rendered anyway.

It's not about what percent of people use accessibility. The important thing is to concentrate on real accessibility issues. The HTML standards people are not going to get any consistent real semantic use of <strong> and <em>. Anytime I've seen them on web pages or ebooks there is no semantic justification, they are simply being used as aliases to <b> and <i>. Real semantic use of <em> would be rare and the publisher isn't going to decide on a word for word basis ever. They simply use entirely <strong> and <em> or entirely <b> and <i>.

[Turtle91]

With all due respect you haven’t “proven” anything. That’s why there is this argument every so often (thanks Wolfie). You can see all of these arguments, including yours, in those multiple threads on this topic I mentioned before…

You can’t refuse to follow the standard because no one you’ve seen in the last X number of years has followed the standard… kinda circular arguing there…

Just because people don’t follow the semantics for em vs i does not invalidate the standard.

It sucks that your experience shows people don’t do their jobs very well… if you want to jump on that train… well, as they say, you do you booboo. I’m going to follow the standard as much as I can.

As for me… I’m done with this repetitive argument.

Cheers!

~ The End ~

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It's ALL styling. But you are missing the point because most if not all of these standards are being created by people involved with Browser design...

Very well said and I agree completely.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

With all due respect you haven’t “proven” anything. That’s why there is this argument every so often (thanks Wolfie). You can see all of these arguments, including yours, in those multiple threads on this topic I mentioned before…

You can’t refuse to follow the standard because no one you’ve seen in the last X number of years has followed the standard… kinda circular arguing there…

Just because people don’t follow the semantics for em vs i does not invalidate the standard.

It sucks that your experience shows people don’t do their jobs very well… if you want to jump on that train… well, as they say, you do you booboo. I’m going to follow the standard as much as I can.

As for me… I’m done with this repetitive argument.

Cheers!

~ The End ~

You are getting sucked into something that should not exist. <em> and <strong> are the same as <i> and <b>. So why use <em> and <strong> when they do noting different to <i> and <b>?

As was said, the author using a word processor to create the book is not going to want <em> and <strong> in place of <i> and <b> as long as the text looks bold and italic where it's wanted. I don't know of any word processor that will use <em> and <strong>. I don't know of any author that even cares. How is <i> & <em> and <b> and <strong> supposed to read differently by a TTS? I've never heard a human read audiobook have different ways of saying something that's bold or italic.

[Quoth]

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:

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?

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.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

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!"

What I meant was different ways of saying something that's italic or bold to differentiate <i> & <b> vs <em> & <strong>. Nobody says them differently. Because they look the same, they get treated the same. It's just a different way to do the exact same thing.

[Quoth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#H...sions_timeline

Presentational markup indicates the appearance of the text, regardless of its purpose
For example, <b>bold text</b> indicates that visual output devices should render "boldface" in bold text, but gives a little indication what devices that are unable to do this (such as aural devices that read the text aloud) should do. In the case of both <b>bold text</b> and <i>italic text</i>, there are other elements that may have equivalent visual renderings but that are more semantic in nature, such as <strong>strong text</strong> and <em>emphasized text</em> respectively. It is easier to see how an aural user agent should interpret the latter two elements. However, they are not equivalent to their presentational counterparts: it would be undesirable for a screen reader to emphasize the name of a book, for instance, but on a screen, such a name would be italicized. Most presentational markup elements have become deprecated under the HTML 4.0 specification in favor of using CSS for styling.

This is W3C propaganda and retcon due to earlier depreciation of <i> and <b> and then rehabilitation of the tags.
It's arrant nonsense.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What I meant was different ways of saying something that's italic or bold to differentiate <i> & <b> vs <em> & <strong>. Nobody says them differently. Because they look the same, they get treated the same. It's just a different way to do the exact same thing.

A human reader will rarely differentiate bold from normal, and then they would say that's in bold so must be important. It's an addition to layout normally, which is why almost all style guides write:
Only use Bold for headings.
So normally in reading out loud , especially fiction, bold (or Strong) is not differentiated. Italics might only be aurally differentiated if it's indicating telepathy (maybe softer) and only maybe. The only example I can think of is an emphatic word in dialogue.
Bold words are used individually (ironically for emphasis) in legal documents but shouldn't be voiced differently. The <strong> vs <b> is crazier than <i> vs <em> which does potentially have one rare use case, though really no-one would lose the sense of TTS if there was no <b>, <i>, <em> or <strong>. It's regarded as poor writing style to use italics in dialogue or bold in the body at all in fiction.

Of course TTS or someone reading a legal document to a partially sighted person isn't true narration. The human would stop and explain and TTS would not be as useful. TTS isn't too bad for fiction.