Skip to content

着重号的英文 #583

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
xfq opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #688
Open

着重号的英文 #583

xfq opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #688
Labels
i:emphasis Emphasis & highlighting 用語/terminology

Comments

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Oct 18, 2023

https://www.w3.org/TR/clreq/#id84

Currently, the document translates 着重号 as "emphasis dots", but Wikipedia and CSS translate it as "emphasis marks", such as:

We can consider changing:

Emphasis dots are symbols placed above [...]

to:

Emphasis dots, also known as emphasis marks, are symbols placed above [...]

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Oct 18, 2023

jlreq translated it as "emphasis dots", and some people translated it as Chinese underdot.

@xfq xfq added the i:emphasis Emphasis & highlighting label Apr 22, 2024
@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented May 22, 2025

@r12a What do you think?

@r12a
Copy link
Contributor

r12a commented May 22, 2025

I prefer to use 'emphasis marks' because sometimes small circles may be used, which are not dots. Also in Japanese emphasis marks include sesame shaped bouten, which are often called sesame dots, but are not really dots.

So i'd suggest:

Emphasis marks, also known as emphasis dots, are symbols placed [...]

xfq added a commit that referenced this issue May 23, 2025
Use "emphasis marks" instead of "emphasis dots". Fix #583.
@xfq xfq linked a pull request May 23, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
i:emphasis Emphasis & highlighting 用語/terminology
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants