> El 17/02/2014, a las 11:29, Barney Carroll escribió: > > While bikeshedding around 'how semantic' people feel any given element to be > is a great laugh (although definitely off-topic for this list), I would > highly recommend the HTML specification for insight into the purpose of any > HTML element, especially when confusion arises over the possibility of using > other elements in its stead. The 'Text-level semantics' page would seem to be > incredibly pertinent to this conversation. From the section describing the > <em> element: > > The em element isn't a generic "italics" element. Sometimes, text is intended > to stand out from the rest of the paragraph, as if it was in a different mood > or voice. For this, the i element is more appropriate. > The em element also isn't intended to convey importance; for that purpose, > the strong element is more appropriate.
Thanks Barney, that's a useful extract. Because browsers draw <em> as italic I'd always assumed it was just a new fangled complication. But it seems as though it wouldn't be bad practice at all to restyle em in the css as one thinks appropriate to the concept of emphasis. I had to go to wikipedia for 'bikeshedding'. Must be my age. Peter ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@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/
