Re: Is there any reason not to use <EM> for items emphasized with .Em?

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

Hi folks,

I think this conversation is getting a little away with us.  Let's 
please, please keep it simple::

  .Em             <span class="em">
  .Bf -emphasis   <div class="em">
  .Sy             <span class="sy">
  .Bf -symbolic   <div class="sy">
  .Li             <span class="li">
  .Bf -literal    <div class="literal">

Then in CSS,

  .em { font-style: italic; }
  .sy { font-weight: bold; }
  .li { font-family: monospace; }
  div.em, div.sy, div.li { display: inline; }

This should really be stuck in the "default" CSS as I've provided in the 
HTML5 document.  This way, we get consistent use of italics (or whatever 
the CSS override wants) without being tied to <i> (etc.) and it's 
consistent for both the .Bf and .Em versions.

I understand it won't be "semantic", but we already lost that game with 
the ".Bf" versions of the same.  Let's keep semantics where it's 
completely unambiguous, and these messages suggest the contrary!

Best,

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv