Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:59:47 -0400
Torsten Bronger <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > and be prepared to see users violate markup to get the appearence
> > they want: if there is something that users see rendered as
> > "bold", there will be users that use it as "bold" regardless of
> > what the intended meaning is!
> You're right, and this is one of the problems I have with DocBook.
> (In DocBook, there really absolutely is no bold at all.) I would
> allow bold, but there still are guidelines and the program could
> deploy annoying warning windows whenever you use it. ;-)
I agree that "bold" (alternatively "strong") should be regarded as an
abstract style container along with "emph" and a suitable
content-level markup should provide both. Moreover, "emph" should be
of order 2 (as in LaTeX) while "bold" should either be idempotent or
of unbounded order. ("\bf" -- as opposed to "\bold" -- refers to a
font, and that does not belong in content-level markup.)
> I don't say that the incoming journal article needn't be edited by
> the publisher, but it would be much less work than it is now.
A good content-level markup under XML should sail right past the
editor insofar as markup is concerned, provided that the editor is
equipped with a suitable array of formatting tools.