[thelist] Bold vs. Strong

[aardvark]

> From: "Joshua Olson" <joshua at waetech.com>
[...]
> Aardvark's example was beautiful in its simplicity:
> 
[ref http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20020729/119519.html]
> 
> But, I'd still suggest that the same visual effect should be
> accomplished by using CSS and designating those words as belonging to
> another class before I'd argue that it's better to revert back to <b>.
>  Span is perfectly valid IMO and is one of the only HTML tags that
> should justifiably be used to apply visual styling as opposed to
> providing semantics.

i disagree... and i'm weighing in because it's my words used in the 
discussion...

<b> doesn't impart semantic meaning, only visual style... it's also a 
much shorter element than <span class="bold"> (or whatever class name 
you choose to assign)... and <b> is still a valid tag in HTML 4.01 
(go ahead, use this to start the XHTML debate)...

too many developers are too quick to use <span> and <div> when there 
is often a better, more appropriate tag to use... even if <b> isn't 
semantically or structurally any different than <span>, it certainly 
was *built* for this role...

personally, i'd stick with the <b>... it may prove to be easier to 
style/destyle, search and replace, and just see when visually 
scanning code...

if you've got other <span>s n the page, it can just add to the noise, 
and you have to maintain another class -- something most people don't 
consider as their CSS bloats and threatens to self-contradict...


-- 
yet another book:
  The Web Professional's Handbook
  http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151221/evoltorg02-20
  ISBN: 1904151221