Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version

In markup languages like HTML ... 'emphasis' and 'strong emphasis' don't necessarily mean 'italic' and 'bold'.

In X/HTML <em> (emphasis) is used to indicate italic and <strong> is used to indicate bold. LO is consistent with this. From memory the ODF specification even references the HTML specification.

In markup languages like HTML ... 'emphasis' and 'strong emphasis' don't necessarily mean 'italic' and 'bold'.

In X/HTML <em> (emphasis) is used to indicate italic and <strong> is used to indicate bold. LO is consistent with this. From memory the The ODF specification even references the HTML v4.01 specification.

EDIT: The proposal (more readily identifiable default character style naming / tdf#90068) seems reasonable. As suggested in the question, the base styles are intended to be extensible and default child styles are often not used e.g., the relation between the paragraph styles Default and Text Body for basic paragraph text. It would seem on the face of it to be a request for improved interoperability / export filters.

In markup languages like HTML ... 'emphasis' and 'strong emphasis' don't necessarily mean 'italic' and 'bold'.

In X/HTML <em> (emphasis) is used to indicate italic and <strong> is used to indicate bold. LO is consistent with this. The ODF specification even references the HTML v4.01 specification.

EDIT: The proposal (more readily identifiable default character style naming / tdf#90068) seems reasonable. As suggested in the question, the base styles are intended to be extensible and default child styles are often not used e.g., the relation between the paragraph styles Default and Text Body for basic paragraph text. It would seem on the face of it to be a request for improved interoperability / export filters.

In markup languages like HTML ... 'emphasis' and 'strong emphasis' don't necessarily mean 'italic' and 'bold'.

In X/HTML <em> (emphasis) is used to indicate italic and <strong> is used to indicate bold. LO is consistent with this. The ODF specification even references the HTML v4.01 specification.

EDIT: The proposal (more readily identifiable default character style naming / tdf#90068) seems reasonable. As suggested in the question, the base styles are intended to be extensible and default child styles are often not used e.g., the relation between the paragraph styles Default and Text Body for basic paragraph text. It would seem on the face of it to be a request for improved interoperability / export filters.