proper use of <cite>

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message
news:btegum$68b m3$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> That's *is* the meaning of "citation"--the identification of[/color]
the source of[color=blue]
> some information or of a quotation. It's just that as far as[/color]
typography is[color=blue]
> concerned, citation isn't of interest, since there isn't any[/color]
typographical[color=blue]
> convention applicable to it as such.[/color]

I think it's most commonly seen when courts refer to, say,
<cite>Roe vs. Wade</cite>.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:ASzKb.7645 46$Fm2.731352@a ttbi_s04...
[color=blue]
> HTML is not about presentation, [...][/color]

It is entirely possible to transmit information over the web as
"text/plain". If the purpose of "text/html" isn't to add tags *with the
expectation that they will be used by user agents, to the extent possible,
to assist in the presentation*, then either (1) there is some other
practical purpose to it, or (2) there isn't.

If there is, what is it? The pat answer, to provide information about
document structure, is circular, because it only leads back to the question,
"What is the value in providing information about document structure if it's
not going to be used in some manner in producing the presentation?"

If there isn't, why bother with tags? Why does anybody bother with tags,
other than because tags are expected to have some impact on the way the
resource will be presented to the user? The answer is that there wouldn't be
any reason.

"HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement of the valid
precept that HTML is not about presentational *details*.
[color=blue]
> [...] it is about meaning.[/color]

If they are not translated into presentational cues, <cite> and <q> and
<blockquote> and <em> have no meaning at all to the user, and the HTML
stream then has no more meaning than a plain text stream with the same
content. The "meaning" conveyed by HTML tags is commensurate with their use
presentationall y by the user agent.

[color=blue]
> Putting something
> in italics is a presentation that is associated with meaning and has a
> history in typesetting. But HTML is supposed to attach meaning and let
> the ua determine how to express that meaning.
>[color=green]
> > Just one example of how, in the attempt to move all "decoration " to
> > stylesheets,[/color]
>
> To take it out of HTML, which is how it was at its origins, no? AFAIK,
> presentation was *added* to html at 3.2. CSS is in part an attempt to
> take it back out.
>[color=green]
> > the traditions of meaningful text presentation have to be abandoned
> > for those whose browsers can't access CSS.[/color]
>
> ...and cannot do what you want in any case. What meaning does italics
> have in braille? An aural browser?[/color]

None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would have *no*
meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using it. I only use it solely
because the information it provides *is* used presentationall y by many of
the user agents through which it is rendered, and therein lies its
meaning--at least, meaning that is of any value.

[Brian]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote
>[color=green]
>> HTML is not about presentation, [...][/color]
>
> If the purpose of "text/html" isn't to add tags *with
> the expectation that they will be used by user agents, to the
> extent possible,[/color]

That is the purpose of html. <em> is for emphasis, not italics. It is
up the ua to determine how to present it.
[color=blue]
> "HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement of[/color]

No. HTML is not about presentation, it is about meaning. UAs are
about presentation.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> ...and cannot do what you want in any case. What meaning does
>> italics have in braille? An aural browser?[/color]
>
> None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would have
> *no* meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using it.[/color]

Really? I expect <em> to having meaning in any presentation. For
example, I'd expect an aural ua to change the voice inflection for
content inside <em>.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:baBKb.7649 78$Fm2.732066@a ttbi_s04...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=green]
> > Brian wrote
> >[color=darkred]
> >> HTML is not about presentation, [...][/color]
> >
> > If the purpose of "text/html" isn't to add tags *with
> > the expectation that they will be used by user agents, to the
> > extent possible,[/color]
>
> That is the purpose of html. <em> is for emphasis, not italics. It is
> up the ua to determine how to present it.
>[color=green]
> > "HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement of[/color]
>
> No. HTML is not about presentation, it is about meaning. UAs are
> about presentation.[/color]

Repeating a fallacy and ignoring my explanation of why it is wrong doesn't
establish your assertion any more firmly. How do you suppose the UA,
whatever its internal rules may be, would know how to arrange a presentation
without the markup to apply the rules to? And that's the *only* reason for
the markup to exist. It's absurd to insist that code whose sole purpose is
to give the user agent the cues it needs to arrange the presentation isn't
"presentational ". It's like saying, "Take two aspirins" isn't a medical
instruction; it's only my compliance with that instruction that's medical.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> ...and cannot do what you want in any case. What meaning does
> >> italics have in braille? An aural browser?[/color]
> >
> > None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would have
> > *no* meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using it.[/color]
>
> Really? I expect <em> to having meaning in any presentation. For
> example, I'd expect an aural ua to change the voice inflection for
> content inside <em>.[/color]

I was responding to Neal's implication that it *wouldn't* have any meaning
in such a user-agent. Your response is based on the opposite premise, so
it's inapplicable to my remark to him. I'll let you and Neal fight it out.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Neal" <neal@spamrcn.c om> wrote in message
news:3ffad5fe$0 $6771$61fed72c@ news.rcn.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message
> news:btegum$68b m3$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=green]
> > That's *is* the meaning of "citation"--the identification of[/color]
> the source of[color=green]
> > some information or of a quotation. It's just that as far as[/color]
> typography is[color=green]
> > concerned, citation isn't of interest, since there isn't any[/color]
> typographical[color=green]
> > convention applicable to it as such.[/color]
>
> I think it's most commonly seen when courts refer to, say,
> <cite>Roe vs. Wade</cite>.[/color]

I don't know where you get the "most" from, but that certainly is another
kind of citation.

[Brian]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote
>[color=green]
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Brian wrote
>>>
>>>> HTML is not about presentation
>>>
>>> If the purpose of "text/html" isn't to add tags *with the
>>> expectation that they will be used by user agents, to the
>>> extent possible,[/color]
>>
>> That is the purpose of html. <em> is for emphasis, not italics.
>> It is up the ua to determine how to present it.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement[/color]
>>
>> No. HTML is not about presentation, it is about meaning. UAs are
>> about presentation.[/color]
>
> Repeating a fallacy[/color]

It's not a fallacy, and I did not repeat it. But since you missed the
point, I will repeat it here: in principle, the html model leaves
presentation to the ua.
[color=blue]
> and ignoring my explanation of why it is wrong
> doesn't establish your assertion any more firmly.[/color]

I could say the same thing to you.
[color=blue]
> How do you suppose the UA, whatever its internal rules may be,
> would know how to arrange a presentation without the markup to
> apply the rules to?[/color]

How does this contradict my statement? The ua presents e.g. <em>
markup as italicized. Or as bold. Or spoken more forcefully. etc.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> What meaning does italics have in braille? an aural browser?
>>>
>>> None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would
>>> have *no* meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using
>>> it.[/color]
>>
>> Really? I expect <em> to having meaning in any presentation. For
>> example, I'd expect an aural ua to change the voice inflection
>> for content inside <em>.[/color]
>
> I was responding to Neal's implication that it *wouldn't* have any
> meaning in such a user-agent. Your response is based on the
> opposite premise, so it's inapplicable to my remark to him. I'll
> let you and Neal fight it out.[/color]

I have no idea what you're on about. You were responding to me in this
exchange, which is composed only of things you and I wrote.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Repeating a fallacy and ignoring my explanation of why it is wrong
> doesn't establish your assertion any more firmly.[/color]

Quite right. It's no fallacy that the majority of misguided web page
authors think HTML is some kind of low-grade DTP, without any regard
to underlying structure.

However, it's an admissible leap of faith to claim that because these
supporters of Sturgeon's Law are all doing it, therefore it must have
been the intention of HTML all along.

The HTML specifications do occasionally mention typical presentations
used by the then-current browsers for representing logical markups;
one might suppose that the folks who wrote that were crediting their
readers with a greater power of abstract thought than has been
justified by experience, and that they should have tried harder to
distance themselves from the implication that these mentioned visual
presentations were the One True Result of such logical markups.
[color=blue]
> How do you suppose the UA, whatever its internal rules may be, would
> know how to arrange a presentation without the markup to apply the
> rules to?[/color]

What? A stressed voice, oblique font, or underlined text, are all
valid representations of emphasis, and each of those presentations
(and no doubt others which don't come to mind right now) appear in
actual browser presentations of emphasis.

And, to take another example, a valid presentation of Hn elements
would be an Overview menu. Some browsers already offer this; others
can do it with client-side scripts, bookmarklets etc.
[color=blue]
> And that's the *only* reason for the markup to exist.[/color]

Wrong. For one thing, not all client agents are browsers.
[color=blue]
> It's absurd to insist that code whose sole purpose is to give the
> user agent the cues it needs to arrange the presentation isn't
> "presentational ". It's like saying, "Take two aspirins" isn't a
> medical instruction; it's only my compliance with that instruction
> that's medical.[/color]

At the Germans say, "not everything that hobbles is an analogy".

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:ldCKb.7655 78$Fm2.732461@a ttbi_s04...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=green]
> > Brian wrote
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Brian wrote
> >>>
> >>>> HTML is not about presentation
> >>>
> >>> If the purpose of "text/html" isn't to add tags *with the
> >>> expectation that they will be used by user agents, to the
> >>> extent possible,
> >>
> >> That is the purpose of html. <em> is for emphasis, not italics.
> >> It is up the ua to determine how to present it.
> >>
> >>> "HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement
> >>
> >> No. HTML is not about presentation, it is about meaning. UAs are
> >> about presentation.[/color]
> >
> > Repeating a fallacy[/color]
>
> It's not a fallacy, and I did not repeat it. But since you missed the
> point, I will repeat it here: in principle, the html model leaves
> presentation to the ua.[/color]

My doctor leaves it to me to actually take the pills. He doesn't force them
down my throat. Are his instructions not "medical instructions"?
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > and ignoring my explanation of why it is wrong
> > doesn't establish your assertion any more firmly.[/color]
>
> I could say the same thing to you.[/color]

Not really, since I responded to your arguments. You said, for example,
[color=blue]
> <CITE> does not say "put in
> italics," any more than <BLOCKQUOTE> says "indent this."[/color]

*Agreeing* with you on this point, I noted that these are presentation
*details*, which HTML should not be used to convey, and then I distinguished
the correct observation that HTML ought not to be used to convey
presentational details from the incorrect observation that "HTML is not
about presentation", which doesn't mean the same thing, and which your
examples don't contradict.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > How do you suppose the UA, whatever its internal rules may be,
> > would know how to arrange a presentation without the markup to
> > apply the rules to?[/color]
>
> How does this contradict my statement? The ua presents e.g. <em>
> markup as italicized. Or as bold. Or spoken more forcefully. etc.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>> What meaning does italics have in braille? an aural browser?
> >>>
> >>> None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would
> >>> have *no* meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> Really? I expect <em> to having meaning in any presentation. For
> >> example, I'd expect an aural ua to change the voice inflection
> >> for content inside <em>.[/color]
> >
> > I was responding to Neal's implication that it *wouldn't* have any
> > meaning in such a user-agent. Your response is based on the
> > opposite premise, so it's inapplicable to my remark to him. I'll
> > let you and Neal fight it out.[/color]
>
> I have no idea what you're on about. You were responding to me in this
> exchange, which is composed only of things you and I wrote.[/color]

My mistake--I was misreading my thread tree. It was *you* who questioned
what meaning italics have in a browser. And I, unfortunately, interpreted
that as questioning what meaning *emphasis* has in a browser, and proceeded
from there, at which point you appeared to contradict yourself but didn't.

So let me back up: I don't know why you wrote "What meaning does italics
have in an aural browser?" We were talking about HTML, and I assume we meant
HTML as used in the recommended way--which means we're not using <i> tags.
So that was already a given for me, and I don't see why you brought the HTML
tag that directly calls for italics--<i>--into this. But as long as you did:
Does the fact that a UA may not follow through on this tag make it a
non-presentational tag? If I choose not to take the pills, does my doctor's
advice become non-medical? Even if he's aware that I might ignore him?

Funny thing, though: I had thought for quite a while that <i> was
deprecated, but now I see that it's not. Interesting, and confusing.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4 .53.04010617332 30.3227@ppepc56 .ph.gla.ac.uk.. .[color=blue]
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Repeating a fallacy and ignoring my explanation of why it is wrong
> > doesn't establish your assertion any more firmly.[/color]
>
> Quite right. It's no fallacy that the majority of misguided web page
> authors think HTML is some kind of low-grade DTP, without any regard
> to underlying structure.
>
> However, it's an admissible leap of faith to claim that because these
> supporters of Sturgeon's Law are all doing it, therefore it must have
> been the intention of HTML all along.[/color]

"HTML is not for presentation" is not the complement of "HTML is used to
establish every last presentational details for a document". I disagree with
the latter state of affairs, but it does not follow that I agree with the
former contention. That is the point I am trying to make.
[color=blue]
>
> The HTML specifications do occasionally mention typical presentations
> used by the then-current browsers for representing logical markups;
> one might suppose that the folks who wrote that were crediting their
> readers with a greater power of abstract thought than has been
> justified by experience, and that they should have tried harder to
> distance themselves from the implication that these mentioned visual
> presentations were the One True Result of such logical markups.
>[color=green]
> > How do you suppose the UA, whatever its internal rules may be, would
> > know how to arrange a presentation without the markup to apply the
> > rules to?[/color]
>
> What? A stressed voice, oblique font, or underlined text, are all
> valid representations of emphasis, and each of those presentations
> (and no doubt others which don't come to mind right now) appear in
> actual browser presentations of emphasis.[/color]

Yes. This means that, properly used, HTML doesn't convey the details of the
presentation. Again, this is not the same as "HTML is not about
presentation". If I talk with my architect about building a house, and I
tell him about my lifestyle and my possessions and my activities and my
finances, but believe it's best to leave it to him to suggest floor plans
and materials, does that mean we're not having an architectural discussion?
If it isn't, then why am I bothering to give the architect all these
details? I'll just say, "Here's money, build a house," and let him figure
out what I want.
[color=blue]
>
> And, to take another example, a valid presentation of Hn elements
> would be an Overview menu. Some browsers already offer this; others
> can do it with client-side scripts, bookmarklets etc.
>[color=green]
> > And that's the *only* reason for the markup to exist.[/color]
>
> Wrong. For one thing, not all client agents are browsers.[/color]

I don't happen to know what your, or the official, definition of "browser"
is that would make it only a subset of the class of user agents. Can you
give me a reference? I also don't know what difference it really makes in
the discussion, but I suppose it's worth knowing.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > It's absurd to insist that code whose sole purpose is to give the
> > user agent the cues it needs to arrange the presentation isn't
> > "presentational ". It's like saying, "Take two aspirins" isn't a
> > medical instruction; it's only my compliance with that instruction
> > that's medical.[/color]
>
> At the Germans say, "not everything that hobbles is an analogy".[/color]

But your reasons for rejecting analogies are anything but apparent.

The funny thing is, I've agreed with you on pretty much all the specifics
about what HTML is or isn't or should or shouldn't be used for, so as far as
I can tell the only thing left about "HTML is not about presentation" that
has a hold on you and Brian is some kind of semantic dogma.

[Jim Dabell]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
> If there is, what is it? The pat answer, to provide information about
> document structure, is circular, because it only leads back to the
> question, "What is the value in providing information about document
> structure if it's not going to be used in some manner in producing the
> presentation?"[/color]

The "pat answer" is that the markup provides information about the various
parts of a document, which can then be used in *multiple* ways. One of
those uses is to aid in presentation, sure. Others include search engine
analysers, meta-information, mechanisms to discover alternative interfaces
to a website, and so on.

[color=blue]
> "HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement of the valid
> precept that HTML is not about presentational *details*.[/color]

What is the difference between "presentati on" and "presentati onal details"?


[color=blue][color=green]
>> [...] it is about meaning.[/color]
>
> If they are not translated into presentational cues, <cite> and <q> and
> <blockquote> and <em> have no meaning at all to the user,[/color]

So? End-users aren't the only things that read documents.


[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> ...and cannot do what you want in any case. What meaning does italics
>> have in braille? An aural browser?[/color]
>
> None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would have *no*
> meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using it.[/color]

Are you saying that there is no way of emphasising something aurally?

[color=blue]
> I only use it solely because the information it provides *is* used
> presentationall y by many of the user agents through which it is rendered,
> and therein lies its meaning--at least, meaning that is of any value.[/color]

Its meaning is defined in the HTML specifications. It's a user-agent's job
to apply that meaning how it sees fit - a search engine might note the
extra emphasis and rank a document higher for those particular keywords, or
a browser might render the text in italics or a different colour to
communicate that meaning to the end-user.

The presentation is only the mechanism to communicate the meaning from
user-agent to end-user. It's not an artifact of the markup language per
se. I disagree with the notion that because some popular browsers agree on
a default presentation for some element types that HTML is suddenly
"presentational ".


--
Jim Dabell

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Jim Dabell" <jim-usenet@jimdabel l.com> wrote in message
news:JLWdnbrx85 Zymmai4p2dnA@gi ganews.com...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> [snip][color=green]
> > If there is, what is it? The pat answer, to provide information about
> > document structure, is circular, because it only leads back to the
> > question, "What is the value in providing information about document
> > structure if it's not going to be used in some manner in producing the
> > presentation?"[/color]
>
> The "pat answer" is that the markup provides information about the various
> parts of a document, which can then be used in *multiple* ways. One of
> those uses is to aid in presentation, sure. Others include search engine
> analysers, meta-information, mechanisms to discover alternative interfaces
> to a website, and so on.[/color]

Some of the tags are used for those purposes as well, and obviously <meta>
tags are used predominately for these purposes. But others, such as <em> or
<blockquote>, are of little or no use for any of these purposes. And some of
these purposes are secondary. Before I worry about whether information I'm
providing can be found by others, I worry about whether they're going to be
able to use it once they find it, and presentation is an aspect of that.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
> > "HTML is not about presentation" is a hyperbolic misstatement of the[/color][/color]
valid[color=blue][color=green]
> > precept that HTML is not about presentational *details*.[/color]
>
> What is the difference between "presentati on" and "presentati onal[/color]
details"?

The details.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [...] it is about meaning.[/color]
> >
> > If they are not translated into presentational cues, <cite> and <q> and
> > <blockquote> and <em> have no meaning at all to the user,[/color]
>
> So? End-users aren't the only things that read documents.[/color]

In the end, they're the only readers that I'm concerned with. I don't much
care whether a search engine has noted in some database all the nice <em>
and <li> tags I've used. I care whether they benefit the end-user, and they
will only do that when they are used for presentational purposes.
[color=blue]
>
>
> [snip][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> ...and cannot do what you want in any case. What meaning does italics
> >> have in braille? An aural browser?[/color]
> >
> > None. If I were writing *only* for those platforms, <em> would have *no*
> > meaning, and I would never, ever bother with using it.[/color]
>
> Are you saying that there is no way of emphasising something aurally?[/color]

There was a misunderstandin g here...no point in repeating the explanation
that I gave elsewhere.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > I only use it solely because the information it provides *is* used
> > presentationall y by many of the user agents through which it is[/color][/color]
rendered,[color=blue][color=green]
> > and therein lies its meaning--at least, meaning that is of any value.[/color]
>
> Its meaning is defined in the HTML specifications. It's a user-agent's[/color]
job[color=blue]
> to apply that meaning how it sees fit - a search engine might note the
> extra emphasis and rank a document higher for those particular keywords,[/color]
or[color=blue]
> a browser might render the text in italics or a different colour to
> communicate that meaning to the end-user.[/color]

Do you use <em> and <li> and <blockquote> to entertain the search engine or
to facilitate communication with the end user.

And--can HTML only be one thing? If you use it for one thing, is it a
technical violation to say it's also used for something else? How does
pointing non-presentational aspects of some HTML mean that no HTML has
presentational aspects.
[color=blue]
>
> The presentation is only the mechanism to communicate the meaning from
> user-agent to end-user. It's not an artifact of the markup language per
> se. I disagree with the notion that because some popular browsers agree[/color]
on[color=blue]
> a default presentation for some element types that HTML is suddenly
> "presentational ".[/color]

The agreement or the default-ness have nothing to do with my contention, so
that particular disagreement of yours is not with me.

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:baBKb.7649 78$Fm2.732066@a ttbi_s04...[color=blue]
> <em> is for emphasis, not italics. It is
> up the ua to determine how to present it.
>[/color]

A conforming UA will generally present it in italics or as
stressed speech.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#edef-EM

Is it possible <strong> and <em> were invented to be
intentionally analogous to boldface and italics? Perhaps a more
'P.C.' version than <b> and <i>...

[Brian]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <em> is for emphasis, not italics. It is up the ua to determine
>> how to present it.[/color]
>
> A conforming UA will generally present it in italics or as stressed
> speech.[/color]

*Generally*, but no always. Lynx is a conforming UA. Lynx cannot do
italics. Thus, <em>foo</em> is not rendered in italics in Lynx.
[color=blue]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/stru...t.html#edef-EM[/color]

Here's the relevant bit that you paraphrased:
"Generally, visual user agents present EM text in italics and STRONG
text in bold font."

But if you keep reading, you'll find, in the *very next sentence*:

"Speech synthesizer user agents may change the synthesis parameters,
such as volume, pitch and rate accordingly."

<em> does not mean italics. It means emphasized text.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I don't much care whether a search engine has noted in some
> database all the nice <em> and <li> tags I've used.[/color]

Do you care whether a search engine notes <title> or <h1>?
[color=blue]
> I care whether they benefit the end-user, and they will only do
> that when they are used for presentational purposes.[/color]

If <title>, <h1>, <h2> etc. help search engines categorize the
billions of pages on the www, then that *does* help the end-user.
[color=blue]
> Do you use <em> and <li> and <blockquote> to entertain the search
> engine or to facilitate communication with the end user.[/color]

They are not mutually exclusive. Unless, of course, you try to make
HTML into a presentational markup language.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:XuGKb.7785 4$xX.547074@att bi_s02...[color=blue]
> Neal wrote:[color=green]
> > A conforming UA will generally present it in italics or as[/color][/color]
stressed[color=blue][color=green]
> > speech.[/color]
>
> *Generally*, but no always. Lynx is a conforming UA. Lynx[/color]
cannot do[color=blue]
> italics. Thus, <em>foo</em> is not rendered in italics in Lynx.[/color]

Yes, that is true. Lynx does nothing at all with <em> to my
knowledge. (I've not succeeded in getting it to work, every
download I've found requires some 'assembly,' with which I have
zero skill...) The text browser emulator in Opera, which I'm told
is similar, makes no change to <em> and <strong> elements. I'll
assume Lynx behaves the same.

So in fact, you cannot make italic text in such a browser. No way
no how. While the reasons why differ, <em> is to Lynx as <q> is
to IE - an ignored bit of markup when it comes time to render.
But - if Lynx *did* do italics, wouldn't it make sense for it to
do so in this case?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/stru...t.html#edef-EM[/color]
>
> Here's the relevant bit that you paraphrased:
> "Generally, visual user agents present EM text in italics and[/color]
STRONG[color=blue]
> text in bold font."
>
> But if you keep reading, you'll find, in the *very next[/color]
sentence*:[color=blue]
>
> "Speech synthesizer user agents may change the synthesis[/color]
parameters,[color=blue]
> such as volume, pitch and rate accordingly."[/color]

My statement should have had the words "visual browsers" in it.
That was an omission, I intended to include that.

What I'm suggesting is this - italics/underlining (analogous in
meaning in text, historically) and boldface are standard
paper-printing styles. Italics has long been used to emphasize,
as well as do other things. Printed italics and spoken emphasis
have been analogous for quite some time. (While italics might not
be emphasized when spoken in every case, when transcribing speech
one would generally use italics for emphasized words if it is
available.)

It seems to me - and if anyone can point me to contrasting facts,
I'd welcome it - that while what you say is true:
[color=blue]
> <em> does not mean italics. It means emphasized text.[/color]

.... it is also true that italics has long meant emphasized text.
It's also true that of all the visual UA's I've ever heard of
that make any distinction at all with regards to <em> and
<strong>, all use italics and boldface respectively. And as I
mentioned, even the W3C suggests that that would be the general
way to express those elements visually, if you're going to do it
at all.

So <em> really has one of three end effects on one's content. 1)
It renders it visually as italics.2) It has no effect at all. 3)
It creates audible emphasis on the element's contents, which as
I've said is analogous to italics.

What you're not saying, but appears to be the crux of your
argument, is that there is no connection between emphasized words
and italicized words. Yet there clearly is.

That's why I argue that presentation is not so easily divorced
from meaning. While the attempt is noble, it fails to account for
the fact that humans *do* associate the two in some cases.
Colors, font sizes and faces, and other presentation have at best
vague implications of expression of content. But the
emphasis/italics connection cannot be so easily brushed aside.

Let me put it this way - if you are quoting inline, do you use
the <q> markup? If so, you will not have quotes around the quote
in IE. If you add quotes but do not use the tag, you are not
marking it for meaning. If you use both, many poor viewers will
see extra quotes. If that bothers you in the slightest, you *are*
concerned with the presentation caused by the <q> markup.

Now, are quotes meaning or presentation? In their absence, you
cannot easily discern a quote.

Is italics (or boldface) meaning or presentation? In their
absence, you cannot discern emphasis at all.

My point is simply that italics are as meaningful as quotes, and
while their absence is not quite as disruptive to the reader, it
is still absent. If all browsers and speech readers did not
render <em>, I charge that nobody would bother using it - similar
to the state of affairs with the noticeable absence of <q> in
source codes, when only one admittedly widespread browser does
not support it.