使文本变成斜体的正确方法是什么?我看到了以下四种方法:

<i>Italic Text</i>

<em>Italic Text</em>

<span class="italic">Italic Text</span>

<span class="footnote">Italic Text</span>

<i>

这是“老办法”。<i>没有语义意义，只传达了使文本变成斜体的表示效果。在我看来，这显然是错误的，因为这是非语义的。

<em>

它使用语义标记来实现纯粹的表示目的。它只是发生在默认情况下，<em>以斜体显示文本，所以它经常被那些知道<i>应该避免，但不知道其语义的人使用。并非所有的斜体文本都是斜体，因为它被强调了。有时，它可以是完全相反的，就像一个边注或耳语。

< span class = "斜体”>

This uses a CSS class to place presentation. This is often touted as the correct way but again, this seems wrong to me. This doesn't appear to convey any more semantic meaning that <i>. But, its proponents cry, it is much easier to change all your italic text later if you, say, wanted it bold. Yet this is not the case because I would then be left with a class called "italic" that rendered text bold. Furthermore, it is not clear why I would ever want to change all italic text on my website or at least we can think of cases in which this would not be desirable or necessary.

<跨越阶层= footnote”>

它使用CSS类来实现语义。到目前为止，这似乎是最好的方法，但实际上它有两个问题。

Not all text has sufficient meaning to warrant semantic markup. For example, is italicised text at the bottom of the page really a footnote? Or is it an aside? Or something else entirely. Perhaps it has no special meaning and only needs to be rendered in italics to separate it presentationally from the text preceding it. Semantic meaning can change when it is not present in sufficient strength. Lets say I went along with "footnote" based upon nothing more than the text being at the bottom of the page. What happens when a few months later I want to add more text at the bottom? It is no longer a footnote. How can we choose a semantic class that is less generic than <em> but avoids these problems?

总结

在许多情况下，语义的要求似乎过于繁重，在这些情况下，使某些内容成为斜体的愿望并不意味着具有语义意义。

此外，将样式与结构分离的愿望导致CSS被吹捧为<i>的替代品，当它实际上没有那么有用的时候。所以这让我回到卑微的<i>标签，并想知道这条思路是否是它留在HTML5规范中的原因?

有没有关于这个主题的好博客或文章?也许是那些参与决定保留/创建<i>标记的人?