> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>
> > fwiw, I don't agree.
>
> > If an author wants "italics" or "bold" then he<em>should</em>,
> > <strong>must</strong>, use<i> and<b>.
> > To stay on-topic I won't mention semantics (should be a no brainer
> though),
> > but CSS: a User Agent does *not* have to make<em> italics
> and<strong>
> > bold, but it has to for<i> and<b>.
>
> Although I don't disagree with your underlying premiss, I do disagree
> with your conclusions. A User Agent is no more obliged to render <i>
> elements in italics, or <b> elements in bold, than it is required to
> set off <p> elements by vertical white space.
I don't think you can make a parallel between the margin on <p> and the
font-weight on <b> afaik, the <b> element has been kept in the spec for a
specific purpose: to make text bold.
The same with <i>, it is to render text in italics.
> CSS gives
> both author and consumer the opportunity (or right, or privilege :
> call it what you will) to override any of those default renderings, as
> in :
>
> I {font-style: normal; font-weight: bold}
> B {font-style: italic; font-weight: normal}
> P {margin-top: 0ex; margin-bottom: 0ex}
The above is irrelevant, we are talking about User Agents' default styles
sheet.
<b> *means* bold, no matter the font-weight authors choose to style it with.
I'd say it would make no sense if a UA were styling <b> with a normal
font-weight. On the other hand, I think it would make sense (to some extend)
if a UA were styling <strong> in red with an underline.
imho, this is because <b> must convey *bold* while <strong> must convey
strong emphasis.
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS
framework
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
