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

[Mark Gallagher]

rudy wrote:

<snip />

>>True, but then having a tag to define the visual appearance is still
>>staying away from the separation of style and structure.
>
> um, maybe i'm missing something, but if there are certain portions of
> structure that have to be styled somehow, how else are you gonna apply the
> style except through some kind of tag?  in other words, you *cannot*

I *knew* <SPAN> was useful for *something*.

> separate style and structure without tags!!

I'm not sure whether to say "what rot" or "well, *duh*" here - both are
equally applicable :-).

Of *course* you can have separate style and structure without tags - a
lack of tags has no bearing on what you do with your styles!

Of *course* you can't have separate style and structure without tags -
tags are required for proper structure in an (X)HTML document!

You get the idea? :o)

>>In practice, using <b> would be the same as using a tag like <red> --
>>using a tag to define the visual appearance breaks away from the
>>concept of tag for markup and style sheets for style.
>
> in other words, you cannot style without markup

Well, without markup, there's nothing *to* style.

> i agree, B and RED and the repulsive SPAN are all the same in this context

Not quite.  <b> == "font-weight: bold;", <red> == (presumably) "color:
#f00;", <span> == "/* whatever you want */".

<snip />

>>Sorry, but the concept of forward scanning for sequential audio
>>has me stumped -- how would that work, exactly?
>
> my point exactly
>
> which is why STRONG would be wrong

Yes.  An aural browser user would have no idea why certain text was
emphasised.


--
Mark Gallagher
Desperately attempting - and failing - to stay on topic since 1999
fuddleriffic - http://cyberfuddle.com/
blog - http://cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/