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

Re: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , 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
    • 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 2 of 8 , Feb 13, 2003
        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 3 of 8 , Feb 13, 2003
          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 4 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
            --- 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 5 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
              --- 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.