[thelist] Bold vs. Strong

[DESCHAMPS Stéphane DSI/SICOR]

> De : rudy
> 
> > Then how could you define it?
> 
> use B for bold, and use EM and STRONG for two levels of emphasis

Yeah... why not. But see below.

> yes, my previous post was largely sarcastic

Oh, was it. :-)

> > ... what's (again) the use of bold text with no meaning 
> implied to the
> boldism?
> 
> meaning?  does there have to be meaning?  it's just bold

Maybe I'm just wondering aloud, really.

But whenever I see some bold I feel the person is trying to communicate the importance of what's bolded.

Anyway I see your point, I guess, kind of, in a way (etc).

You're into visual decoration, aren't you?

> > How do you define a text that is "going to be bold only 
> visually but not
> mean
> > that this part of text is meant to effectively be put forward in my
> discourse"?
> 
> how to define text that is only bold visually but has no emphasis?
> 
> B

Wouldn't that be <span class="rudy"> though? (ouch, don't hit)

BTW I'd be curious to see a site that un-italicizes EM and de-bolds STRONG and makes emphasis and stronger emphasis through, I don't know, font size or color.

s t e f (aka notabene)
http://evolt.org/user/notabene/22696/
http://www.nota-bene.org/