Re: Literary titles & formatting

I believe that the reason that text is set in italics *is* to draw 
attention to it (i.e., to emphasize). I don't see any problem with book 
titles being read a bit louder than the surrounding text. Aren't these 
the key words?

Now, if the book is being referenced (in a footnote, for example), then 
yes, I would use <cite>. After all, that's what it is for. But if you 
are mentioning a book title in the text of an article, I would use <em 
class="BookTitle">. This provides some sort of emphasis on older 
browsers, and allows me to use CSS on newer browsers to set the specific 
style for book titles. Even if I just leave it at the default styling 
(usually italics), I can always go back and add styles later.

Examples:

<p>I was thinking about <span class="BookAuthor">Thomas Pynchon</span>, 
the author of <em class="BookTitle">Gravity's Rainbow</em>, the other 
day.</p>

<p>According to <span class="Person">Thich Nhat Hanh</span>, 
&quot;<q>The most precious gift we can offer others is our 
presence.</q>&quot; <cite class="Book"><em class="BookTitle">Living 
Buddha, Living Christ</em>, p. <span class="PageNumber">20</span>.</p>

Incidentally, this HTML element is poorly named. A citation is really a 
quotation, not a reference to its source. If I cite Hamlet, I do it by 
quoting him. (Literally, it means to summon Hamlet.) But the HTML 4.01 
Recommendation defines <cite> as containing either "a citation or a 
reference to other sources." (Effectively an admission that the two are 
not the same.) <q> and <blockquote> are preferred for quotations.

Another issue is that typically a reference includes both the title and 
the author's names (and often dates, pages, etc.). All of this would 
belong in the <cite> element, so you'll still need some way to 
distinguish the title. As you can see, I recommend <em>.

The issue with italics is this: why are you using them? Unless it is 
purely a decorative effect, you are using them to *draw attention to a 
word or phrase*. Isn't this the definition of emphasis? (If you are 
using them decoratively, I recommend using something else. Italics are 
associated with emphasis in the minds of readers.)

So the real difference between <i> and <em> is that <i> limits the 
emphasis to visual users. If I can *see* this emphasis, shouldn't my 
blind friend *hear* it?

Finally, <i> is purely presentational. It tells the browser that the 
text is to be set in italics, but it doesn't say why. I'm a firm 
believer that presentation belongs in CSS, not in HTML. Use HTML to mark 
up page structure, and, to the extent possible, content. Use CSS or 
equivalent for presentation, avoiding <b>, <i>, <font>, and 
presentational attributes. (And especially using <span> and the style 
attribute to simply recreate the <font> element.)

Incidentally, when using foreign words in text, one commonly sets them 
in italics as well. I use <em xml:lang="es"> in my code rather than 
<span xml:lang="es"> because I believe these should be emphasized as 
well. (Note that I am using XHTML 1.1.) I'm not talking about foreign 
borrowings (e.g. patio), but about words such as Schadenfreude, which 
haven't yet become part of standard English.

Example:

<p>Many Americans were shocked by the <em 
xml:lang="de">Schadenfreude</em> of the Palestinians, forgetting for the 
moment the glee with which their fellow citizens had celebrated the 
bombing of Baghdad and the massacre of Hussein's fleeing troops.</p>

That's my technique, anyway.

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington

HWG: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA