@aparrish @jalefkowit Truly, after opening that page
<p>I looked at it and thought <i>This can't be real!</i></p>
, I certainly did.
@gaditb @aparrish @jalefkowit@octodon.social i mean it's more that after committing to the bit of using <em> and <strong> for everything (in HTML4) some folks were like “okay but that actually DOESN’T work for everything we used to use <i> and <b> for” and so they had to walk it back
the names are afaik an MDN invention to make them easier to learn (since “bold” and “italics” is incorrect)—the spec just calls them “the b element” and “the i element”
as for why “bold” and “italics” is wrong—remember that other scripts exist than Latin and they need to be representable in HTML too :)
[using chinese emphasis marks to denote a scientific name for a species would be, i believe, profoundly incorrect]
@Lady @aparrish @jalefkowit "chinese emphasis marks"?
(say more about this if you'd be up for it, I don't know it and while I could look it up and you could reasonably respond "yeah, just look it up", its definition sounds like a productive addition to the conversation in the case where I'm not the only one whose extremely limited knowledge of Chinese doesn't go very far?)
@gaditb @aparrish @jalefkowit@octodon.social
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis_mark
MDN for the text-emphasis CSS property: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/text-emphasis
