[thelist] replace <b> with <strong> (why dont use b tag)]

Adam Fahy afahy at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 31 15:10:01 CDT 2002


Madhu Menon wrote:
> At 09:42 PM 31-07-02, Adam Fahy wrote:
>
>> ...when you don't have the appropriate markup in standard HTML.  It
>> provides a much richer semantic structure than is possible with <b>.
>
> You've stumped me. What semantic structure does <span class="visualCue">
> have?

I offered that as an example.  Perhaps instead of "visualCue" you could
come up with something more meaningful to you.  Maybe "keyword"?


 > I could call it <span class="mySmellySocks"> and it would be just as
> valid, would it not?

Valid in what way?  Valid as far as a validating parser goes?  Ok.  But
"mySmellySocks" is not, IMO, valid as far as providing meaningful
structure to your document (it may be useful as a title for an image or
passage, however).

Unless of course you can give me an example where "mySmellySocks"
provides more information about a passage/selection than "visualCue" or
"keyword".


> When I want my text bold without any other meaning attached to it, why
> wouldn't I use just <b>? That's what the <b> tag's purpose is.

When do you want a discrete item bold without it having a reason or
specific meaning?  Show me a link.


>> ...when you don't have the appropriate markup in standard HTML.
 >
> <B> makes stuff bold. That's appropriate enough, isn't it?

Ask yourself the question, "what am I making bold?"

The point is not to forgo <b> for the sake of forgoing <b>, but rather
to ask yourself if there is a more meaningful way to describe what
you're trying to do.  Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that <b>
didn't actually "make stuff bold."  Would you still use it to describe
what you were formerly trying to make bold?  What /would/ you use?
This, IMO, is the litmus test.


-Adam




More information about the thelist mailing list