From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7D26lx9013081 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hn18so8746679igb.15 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :comments:mime-version:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id; bh=TehdLJHjobLUdRS2zmg0j9tOf9pV/H9ejGOGACzUvzw=; b=jEcsFeNh+JgimrMNx72ciRmogBBaxWKbvmxBXzwo5dL1f1FWckxmRFFDc+Agw2QdZn 0pjU4Vy7PyCDAkvaBPTbOEtNlw1KozPOrCrgMgFqqymmPVpV9zBfMJ6/QASq6ujTr9JM +AS4+X51KSnn30l0KynT+fHnBCOOUsXvdDUp7qxGos8uwRuM+6Bo3rSYq/eEm65le1LS A/Hi0ZpbIQvayPaDe8eWIdA30yWaICVJhCnspT/TFpInCL8hObFT7wvx43IEbfNTJgwm QBMivJVqixk0bU4P2/cPUOzPcio3GkJQMrKIRTJtRIRvIgh9GmYdRnhuHjKvJqk6lrvj 10dA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQks7guY6Ja2gZwUdG1as/4T8pszhUjfiVXsXVc7mYiEnnYV+XG00qu9mZ97LvaQHlfo22dG X-Received: by 10.43.57.203 with SMTP id wh11mr888557icb.54.1407895601899; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cathet.us. (97-123-213-212.albq.qwest.net. [97.123.213.212]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z12sm3054711igu.11.2014.08.12.19.06.39 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cathet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]); by cathet.us. (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 75582954; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:06:38 -0600 (MDT) From: "Anthony J. Bentley" To: Ingo Schwarze cc: kristaps@bsd.lv, tech@mdocml.bsd.lv, Guy Harris Subject: Re: Is there any reason not to use for items emphasized with .Em? In-reply-to: <20140813011505.GA24152@iris.usta.de> References: <01237D5A-9F46-4047-83BF-A98CAB0C16E1@alum.mit.edu> <20140813011505.GA24152@iris.usta.de> Comments: In-reply-to Ingo Schwarze message dated "Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:15:05 +0200." X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <30573.1407895598.1@cathet.us> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:06:38 -0600 Message-ID: <3063.1407895598@cathet.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by krisdoz.my.domain id s7D26lx9013081 Hi Ingo, Ingo Schwarze writes: > i think this is an improvement but feel like knowing too little > about HTML to just go ahead and commit. Can either of you (or > somebody else who feels at home with HTML) provide an OK? I thought this would be a dead simple decision, but my email draft keeps getting more and more complicated! There are three HTML elements that could conceivably make sense here: , , and . mdoc(7): "Denotes text that should be emphasised. Note that this is a presentation term and should not be used for stylistically decorating technical terms. Depending on the output device, this is usually represented using an italic font or underlined characters." Based on this description, would make the most sense. (Essentially, I read it as being a straight equivalent to man(7)'s I macro.) http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-i-element mdoc(7): Examples: .Em Warnings! .Em Remarks: Based on these examples, would make the most sense. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-strong-element Note that in the HTML world, is considered to be a semantic element (unlike ). In practice, browsers display in boldface but the standard would allow italics here because it is considered a semantic element. (As an aside, there are many uses of Sy in OpenBSD manpages like "Note:" and "Important:". Based on mdoc(7) that seems to be misuse of presentational macros.) The third possible element is itself. 's raison d'être is emphasis, such as most situations where you would use italics in prose (although one exception would be "raison d'être" itself, which as a foreign language idiom would be marked up with ...). http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-em-element Honestly? I think this is just hair-splitting and we should use for Em. But if we do that, mdoc(7) probably should be revised for clarity. -- Anthony J. Bentley -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv