3741Re: [NH] vs. , vs.
- Feb 13, 2003--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
> structural language it was meant to be and is suited for. Non CSSdevices
> get the structural markup and can display it accordingly = a whole lotdumbed
> 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
> down style sheet for it's own protection. They just get more plainlooking
> 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>