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

[Adam Fahy]

Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> Adam Fahy wrote:
>
>> When do you want a discrete item bold without it having a reason or
>> specific meaning?

> When my artistic muse tells me it should be bold; that's between
> me and my muse, and maybe my clients ... :-)

so YOU rAndoMLY bOlD PArtS of YOUR teXt, BEcaUSE your "mUsE' sAYS to?


> The Web certainly deserves to be better structured, semantically,
> but for most of us it's /still/ a medium with *visual* elements.

Isn't that what <img> and <style> are there for?


> Visuals are OK.

Why construct straw men?  Do you feel you can't argue against the point?


>> 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?
>
> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that "color: red;"
> didn't actually "make stuff red." Would you still use it to describe
> what you were formerly trying to make red? What /would/ you use?

I'm not arguing for the use of <color: red;> as a tag, so I don't
understand your point.  More specifically, I think you completely missed
mine.

If your question is, do I advise using style rules (CSS) which may not
show up in a given browser?  Sure (as long as it remains functional, of
course).  That's a huge tangent however.


-Adam