[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