# Weak vs Strong Emphasis

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/weak-vs-strong-emphasis/1943>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [December 23, 2015, 7:57am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/weak-vs-strong-emphasis/1943 "2015-12-23T07:57:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dmitry](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/dmitry/32/849_2.png) [@Dmitry](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Dmitry)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 7:57am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/weak-vs-strong-emphasis/1943/1 "2015-12-23T07:57:53Z")

</div>

Hi All,

I’m relatively new to CommonMark, love the idea and the implementations (recently contributed to [CommonMark.NET](http://CommonMark.NET)).

Since we are already in a flurry of terminology changes, this seems to be as good time as any to propose disambiguating **emphasis** as follows:

1. _weak emphasis_ – inline content surrounded by single `_` or `*` (essentially what’s called _emphasis_ today)
2. _strong emphasis_ – inline content surrounded by `__` or `**` (unchanged from today)
3. _emphasis_ – encompasses 1 and 2.

It has been suggested [elsewhere](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/naming-of-h1-6-should-be-headings-not-headers-per-w3c/1871/2) that _stress emphasis_ and _strong importance_ be used for 1 and 2 respectively, but I find that a far too radical departure from familiar terminology.

Any constructive feedback will be appreciated.

**Update:** W3C HTML5 notes on [\<em\>](http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/em.html) and [\<strong\>](http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/strong.html) use the following abnomination:

1. emphatic stress
2. strong importance

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chrisalley](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/chrisalley/32/906_2.png) [@chrisalley](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/chrisalley)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/weak-vs-strong-emphasis/1943/2 "2015-12-23T23:05:39Z")

</div>

I’m favour of using the terminology “stress emphasis” and “strong importance”; maintaining consistency with HTML5 makes sense since that is the primary output format.

Definitions from the HTML5 spec:

[http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-em-element](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-em-element)  
[http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-strong-element](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-strong-element)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dmitry](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/dmitry/32/849_2.png) [@Dmitry](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Dmitry)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 6:01am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/weak-vs-strong-emphasis/1943/3 "2015-12-24T06:01:33Z")

</div>

As much as I can relate to consistency with HTML (see [another suggestion](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-vs-unordered-list/1945)), I believe it (or its formal specification) should not be favored over other output formats.

The (cumbersome IMO) HTML terminology was intended as a breakaway from the `<i>` and `<b>` legacy, which CommonMark needs not be concerned with. _Emphasis_ and _strong emphasis_, on the other hand, have been around for nearly twelve years, and replacing them should not be taken lightly.

However, if consistency with HTML5 terminology is deemed necessary, I’d reluctantly prefer _emphatic stress_ over _stress emphasis_, as readers familiar with the current terms could easily confuse the latter with the visually similar _strong emphasis_.