<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - The "Strong" button when added to a toolbar shows "Strong Emphasis" not Strong"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136686#c8">Comment # 8</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - The "Strong" button when added to a toolbar shows "Strong Emphasis" not Strong"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136686">bug 136686</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mikekaganski@hotmail.com" title="Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Mike Kaganski</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>We have "Emphasis" and "Strong Emphasis". They are - in the best spirit of
style ideology - *semantical* elements, and their names bear the idea of
*levels* of emphasizing something. We have "normal" emphasis, and "even
stronger" emphasis.
In the best spirit of style usage, they *do not* mean any kind of specific
formatting like "italics" or "bold" or anything. The specific formatting is
just a detail, the defaults expressing some preferences of those who created
original implementation (wherever that happened). No, "Emphasis" is *not* equal
to "italics", and "Strong Emphasis" is not equal to "Bold". And proposed
"Strong" would also *not* equal to "Bold", for the same reason. Styles are not
just different name for those direct formatting buttons, they require different
paradigm, different way of thinking. And this tries to establish such a bond
between specific direct formatting and specific styles, at the same time
breaking semantical bond between two semantically related styles. I disagree
with this. I suppose that the .uno command should be renamed to "Strong
Emphasis" for consistency, not the style name be broken.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>