From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Cross Subject: Re: Ox-html: Replace with and with Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:00:07 +1100 Message-ID: <87in1rkqlk.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r2gfyj62.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33630) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFQGM-00062B-4g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:00:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFQGK-0000VR-8G for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:00:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]:41740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gFQGF-0000PA-LY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:00:16 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id a19-v6so3029615pfo.8 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:00:13 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Kaushal Modi Cc: emacs-org list Kaushal Modi writes: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:04 AM Nicolas Goaziou = wrote: >> >> >> No objection from me. Thank you! > > Actually, before making this change, I started reading up on the HTML5 > spec on the b, strong, i, em tags, and now I am confused as ever. > > Facts: > > - b and i are not deprecated > - b and strong are both valid but their use depends on the writer's > context (but Org mode has just one mark for either "*") > - i and em are both valid but their use depends on the writer's > context (but Org mode has just one mark for either "/"). > > From "em" docs[em], in the NOTE section there: > >> The em element isn=E2=80=99t a generic "italics" element. Sometimes, tex= t 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. > > See the b tag docs[b] and i tag docs[i], and this W3C FAQ on using b > and i tags[faq] for more. > > > *Summary* (/see what I did there?/): > > I guess there's no need to change what "*" and "/" do right now in > ox-html, as there doesn't seem "one right way" to do things here. > > And folks strongly wanting to use and for bold and > italic can customize org-html-text-markup-alist. > > HTML experts, please chime in. > > > > [em]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/textlevel-semantics.html#the-em-element > [b]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/textlevel-semantics.html#the-b-element > [i]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/textlevel-semantics.html#the-i-element > [faq]: https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-b-and-i-tags I'll start by stating I'm definitely not an HTML expert. I do believe we should move away from b/i to strong/em as I think these are the correct semantic tags to use and are generally what is preferred. This means they are also likely to already have appropriate 'styling' in many 'canned' styles and valid consistent interpretations for different media types.=20 The problem with b and i is that they specify how rather than what and don't always make sense for all possible media types. For example, what does 'bold' or 'italic' mean for a screen reader? I don't think this is something that is urgent, but it is the direction we should go. The only real reason for sooner rather than later is that we can probably simplify some of the exporters and ensure any new exporters are correct and won't need to be change retrospectively. Tim --=20 Tim Cross