[docbook-apps] Re: DocBook XSL 1.67.0 released

[Sam Steingold <sds at gnu dot org>]

> * Michael Smith <fzvgu@kzy-qbp.bet> [2004-11-12 02:12:16 +0900]:
>
> Yeah, "em" means "emphasis". But "i" does not mean "italic" -- it
> _is_ italic. "i" is a command to a browser, saying, "render this
> in italic type". It is purely and completely presentational and
> carries not one ounce of meaning.
>
> Please let's pretend that b and i and tt don't exist and never
> have existed, and then let's continue from there.
>
> How is it any more appropriate to suggest that the stylesheets
> should output b and i in HTML than it would be to suggest that
> DocBook should contain <bold> and <italic> elements?

eventually you are going to get to a sufficiently low level where you
must specify how a specific character looks like.
you are trying to push this task off your table - to the browser or CSS.
this is fine with me - as long as the final appearance is correct,

what I am trying to say is that "em" is not the same as "i" and
rendering <varname> as <em> is may be wrong because then the variable
names will be italic in some places and normal in others.

> Sam Steingold <sds@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> > * Michael Smith <fzvgu@kzy-qbp.bet> [2004-11-10 05:56:16 +0900]:
>> >
>> >   * Use strong/em instead of b/i in HTML output
>> 
>> with all due respect, I am not quite sure that this is completely
>> correct.
>> 
>> I thought that "em" meant "emphasis" while "i" meant italic.
>> This, "em" should _toggle_ italic, while "i" should turn it on
>> unconditionally.
>> Thus, the following:
>>       <i>italic <em>not italic</em> italic again</i>
>> (at least TeX does something like that with Âem and Âit).
>> 
>> If my understanding is correct, then this change might not be correct.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
My other CAR is a CDR.