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

Re: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • Stefan Elssner
    Scott Fordin wrote: Hi, all, I m wondering what people s take is on using logical versus physical elements for things like / and
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Scott Fordin wrote:
      > Hi, all,
      >
      > I'm wondering what people's take is on using logical
      > versus physical elements for things like <em>/<i> and
      > <strong>/<b>.
      > ...

      I had myself a phase of strictly using logical markup -- or at least
      trying to do so -- two or four half-years ago. For matters of structure
      and confirmance, sure :)

      Now I use a somewhat relaxed scheme. If it _really_ does matter to be
      same in any browser I use the depreciated but always working (for all i
      know) physical elements. Otherwise I use styles. Which give much more
      power for afterward changings, not only of the particular emphasis, most
      of the time.

      And sometimes when too lazy to look for or write the needed CSS class I
      use the physicals too, simply because they are shorter to type than the
      logicals. :)

      -- Stefan

      --
      Stefan Elssner
      mailto:elssner@...

      __________________________________________________________________

      Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
      Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
    • goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@yahoo.com>
      ... the ... devices ... dumbed ... looking ... Sorry, but I can t agree. 1. For those of us humans reading the raw code, is briefer than and is
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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
      • Jason Waugh
        Hi goldenapuleius, gGyc 1. For those of us humans reading the raw code, is briefer than gGyc and is much briefer than . Succinctness
        Message 3 of 8 , 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
        • Greg Chapman
          Hi Jason, ... I m with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious point that the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 13, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Jason,

            > <i> loses it's meaning when you don't use it to italicize, <em> is
            > always unmistakeably emphasis.

            > 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.

            I'm with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious point that
            the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also has
            absolutely no meaning.

            Whilst, I must confess, I only use visual browsers and only expect my users
            to do so, and so, in the real world, I do tend to use <I> tags, I do
            completely accept the thrust of the W3C, that style and structure should be
            separated.

            Can anyone tell me whether aural browsers shout louder, speak deeper, or
            just add and Italian accent, when reading an <I> tag? Don't answer! It'll
            be defined in the stylesheet, won't it?

            Greg
          • goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@yahoo.com>
            ... . ... point that ... my users ... should be ... no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing structural about and .
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Chapman" <greg@e...> wrote:
              .
              >
              > I'm with you all the way on this! And you miss the very obvious
              point that
              > the W3C are very hooked into non-visual browsers, where italic also has
              > absolutely no meaning.
              >
              > Whilst, I must confess, I only use visual browsers and only expect
              my users
              > to do so, and so, in the real world, I do tend to use <I> tags, I do
              > completely accept the thrust of the W3C, that style and structure
              should be
              > separated.
              >

              no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing
              "structural" about <em> and <strong>. both are just as presentational
              as <i> and <b>; only difference is, the rendering of <em> and <strong>
              is not declared by the html standard, but was only conventionally
              treated as italics and bold-weight by the browsers.

              anyway, this is offtopic so I'll shut up.

              stp
            • jorigami <jorma.oksanen@aina.fi>
              ... EM/STRONG *are* structural elements: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-EM Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments.
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In ntb-html@yahoogroups.com, "goldenapuleius <GoldenApuleius@y...>" <GoldenApuleius@y...> wrote:

                > no, dude, you both missed my point -- which is: there is nothing
                > "structural" about <em> and <strong>. both are just as presentational
                > as <i> and <b>; only difference is, the rendering of <em> and <strong>
                > is not declared by the html standard, but was only conventionally
                > treated as italics and bold-weight by the browsers.

                EM/STRONG *are* structural elements:
                http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-EM
                "Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments."

                Also see
                http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/phrase/em.html


                Jorma
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.