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

Re: [NH] vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.