From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7DIrv6W023955 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-50-136-212-110.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.136.212.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7DIrfWx016014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:49 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: Is there any reason not to use for items emphasized with .Em? From: Guy Harris In-Reply-To: <20140813172048.GE26534@iris.usta.de> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:44 -0700 Message-Id: <84F75A8D-6416-4600-9C73-23DA6EEBDE7A@alum.mit.edu> References: <01237D5A-9F46-4047-83BF-A98CAB0C16E1@alum.mit.edu> <20140813172048.GE26534@iris.usta.de> To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVYgH8GO3x2wYEeMRZ3ayrMvKKIvr+dXAoh1pxbG8FNvmfxzL//6mZRYAXDcM0XCZ2fIaQazCuu5MGZDHYTcHucY X-Sonic-ID: C;gqehJBsj5BG8LN90oK8kYw== M;qnRYKBsj5BG8LN90oK8kYw== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by krisdoz.my.domain id s7DIrv6W023955 On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > But there is a second, slight problem: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/em > exlicitly says: > > Usage Note: Typically this element is displayed in italic type. > However, it should not be used simply to apply italic styling; > use the CSS styling for that purpose. > > Which is exactly what Kristaps' code did before my commit - and note > that i just argued myself, in my last mail, that .Em is physical, > not semantic markup, so this advice does indeed seem to apply. It's physical, in that it says how the text it covers should be presented, rather than what it means, but it's not italics; the man page for the mdoc macro package says Text may be stressed or emphasized with the `.Em' macro. The usual font for emphasis is italic. which sounds like the description of on the mozilla.org site: The HTML element (or HTML Emphasis Element) marks text that has stress emphasis. The element can be nested, with each level of nesting indicating a greater degree of emphasis. Usage Note: Typically this element is displayed in italic type. However, it should not be used simply to apply italic styling; use the CSS styling for that purpose. If somebody's using .Em to make something italic for reasons other than stress emphasis, that's presumably because mdoc doesn't offer a macro that does what they really want. If they explicitly want something displayed in italics, they can use ".ft I" and ".ft"/".ft R", or "\fI" and "\fR"/"\f"; those presumably map to and . So the second problem doesn't bother me; I suspect we're stuck with impedance mismatches such as that when we're going from mdoc (which isn't a language that describes only low-level rendering) to HTML (which also isn't a language that describes only low-level rendering). -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv