|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 04/05/06 21:21
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, William Tasso wrote - seen in alt.html (f'ups
suggested):
> <axlq@spamcop.net> stumbled into
> news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
> and said:
>
> > I do disagree with their recommendation to eliminate <b> and
> > replace it with <strong> -- why waste the extra bytes?
>
> hrmm - <strong> is not a replacement for <b>
<strong>Agreed</>. If <b> is correctly used, it *cannot* mean
<strong>; in fact it can mean many different things for which bold
font is conventionally used, *excepting* those for which HTML provides
a purpose-designed markup. Similarly for <i>
> <b> has no place in the modern web, it is purely a styling detail
Well, I think that's arguable.
Some usages of bold are firmly entrenched in typography (for example,
the volume number in a journal citation), and I see no real harm (so
long as HTML has no other markup for the purpose) in using <b> for
those uses.
Or rather, <b class="something">, where the class at least has some
human meaning, in the absence of any suitably-defined HTML markup.
Similarly for, say, the scientific name of a species, where an italic
font is a widespread convention, but, again, HTML has no <species>
markup, so we must do our best with what we have.
> and as such deserves to be discarded in favour of a CSS suggestion.
By all means associate the markup (b.something, i.species etc) with
presentation proposals.
But I still think that markups like <b class="volume">,
<i class="species">, in situations where the typography is
sufficiently entrenched, have a slight edge over the unspecific
<span class="something"> markup that you're presumably implying here.
> <strong> has an altogether different significance - which may (or
> may not) include presenting text in a bold style.
Certainly agree with that.
best regards
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|