Dag Wieers wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that what is described within AsciiDoc as *bold* is being > translated to role:strong. AsciiDoc transforms this to bold text, but > docbook2odf translates this to bold+italic. > > When discussing this with the docbook2odt maintainer wrt. the default > docbooK2odt stylesheet he references to the fact that there is eiter > role:bold and role:strong. > > So the logical question than is, why is AsciiDoc not translating *bold* to > <emphasis role="bold"> instead of <emphasis role="strong">. > > In essence this is configurable both in asciidoc as well as in > docbook2odt, however I would prefer to have similar behaviour in both > styles.
Strong (and emphasis) have generic semantic connotations whereas bold (and italics) define specific textual output presentations. Most DocBook stylesheets stick to the convention of strong text presented in bold and emphasized text in italic, though that's just a convention not a hard and fast rule. DocBook goes to great lengths not to specify the physical representation of the presentational output in the markup language. This is why the AsciiDoc User Guide uses the term strong rather than bold -- it's up to your downstream stylesheets to decide on the appropriate output representation. > > Thanks in advance, > -- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- > [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] > > _______________________________________________ > Asciidoc-discuss mailing list > Asciidoc-discuss@metaperl.com > http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asciidoc-discuss > Cheers, Stuart _______________________________________________ Asciidoc-discuss mailing list Asciidoc-discuss@metaperl.com http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asciidoc-discuss
