Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3741Re: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@yahoo.com>
    Feb 13, 2003
      --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, loro <loro@h...> wrote:
      >
      > > especially with the maturation of CSS and more
      > > sophisticated browsers, I wonder if there's really
      > > any useful difference between logical and physical
      > > after all.
      >
      > That's the point of CSS. To handle the "physical" and let (X)HTML be
      the
      > structural language it was meant to be and is suited for. Non CSS
      devices
      > get the structural markup and can display it accordingly = a whole lot
      > better than they could the table and tag soup. The only losers are the
      > intermediate browsers like Netscape4 that may have to be served a
      dumbed
      > down style sheet for it's own protection. They just get more plain
      looking
      > page. Worse things could happen to a dying browser.
      >


      Sorry, but I can't agree.

      1. For those of us humans reading the raw code, <i> is briefer than
      <em> and <b> is much briefer than <strong>. Succinctness rules over
      verbosity -- especially when functionality is no different (or
      impaired in the case of older browsers trying to read code.)

      2. All browsers that I have seen render <em> as italics and <strong>
      as bold anyway -- by default.

      3. Style sheets can be used to dictate the rendering of <i> just as
      easily as <em> and of <b> just as easily as <strong>

      4. If the question is one of XSL and transformations, <i> is as easy
      to transform into (whatever) as <em> is, and the same for <b> and <strong>

      I really don't get the deprecation of <i> and <b>. It just looks like
      holier-than-thou code snobbishness to me.

      s
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic