[rfc-i] Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 1 08:09:02 PDT 2014

On 4/30/14 11:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

>> s2.21, <em>:  Would it be better to call this <emph> to match with
>> typical Tex usage (or is there some other prior art)?
> It would probably be better to match what HTML users expect. I believe there are more of them than TeX users.
>> Also does it
>> *have* to be italic and therefore the same as <i>?  Shouldn't this be
>> 'typically italic' but left to the formatter to do it as it wants?
>> Accordingly should <i> be allowed content in <em(ph)> (and vice versa)?
> Yes; no; no. You are theoretically correct on the first one, but if it is not predictable, we will waste *huge* amounts of writers time arguing about it. Better to just be consistent.
> [[ Same answers for <strong>/<b> ]]

If <em> and <strong> are simply synonyms for <i> and <b>, then why would 
I want to prefer <em> and <strong>?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list