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

3742Re: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • Jason Waugh
    Feb 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi goldenapuleius,

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

      <i> loses it's meaning when you don't use it to italicize, <em> is
      always unmistakeably emphasis. If you had never seen an <i> tag and
      were new to all of HTML, then <em> would make more sense to you. This
      isn't just a question of succinctness over verbosity, it's a matter of
      context and definition. You're essentially saying that I should call
      the grass the sky because I'll save a couple of letters. Won't my
      four year old be thrilled that I've turned her world upside down to
      please you.

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

      So?

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

      That's just fantastic, just what we need, confusion to make life
      easier for you. On most of my intranet pages I have <em> styled as
      BOLD GREEN for display on the screen, and ITALIC for print. In both
      cases <em>phasis makes sense, but only in one case does <i>talics make
      any sense. I'd hate to see the poor bastards at my work who are just
      learning HTML/CSS come after me and try and figure out why <i> tags
      aren't doing italics.

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

      <i> and <b> both are still representative of a "styling" mentality
      while <em> and <strong> are representative of a "structure" mentality.
      Why bother with style sheets, XHTML, etc. at all if not to carry it
      all the way?

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

      No, it just makes sense.


      --
      Regards,
      Jason Waugh
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic