[thelist] Re: thelist Digest, Vol 6, Issue 49

[Diane Soini]

I have noticed in some browsers that if you use <b> you actually get 
the bold typeface of the font. In otherwords, the text isn't just 
heavier, it is actually different -- the bold version. Same with the 
<i> tag. Don't really have a point other than just that I've noticed 
it. I wonder if you also get the bold typeface if you chose <strong> or 
the italic/oblique if you choose <em> or <cite>?

One thing that makes markup language somewhat confusing is that it 
originally started out as all about semantic markup, then there arose a 
desire for more print-like display capabilities, now there is a desire 
to return to the semantic, meaningful markup. Look at any ad in a 
magazine. Words are not always bold, all caps or italics just because 
they are emphasizing, citing or whatever. Sometimes they are just 
styled just for the style of it. As much as some would like to return 
to a web that is all about semantics, there will always remain times 
when things look the way they do for no semantic reason at all. So why 
not have <b> just for the sake of being bold and for no other reason? 
Sometimes you need variation on the page, not to emphasize in a 
meaningful way, but to give the big blob of gray text some texture. The 
ability to choose fonts so limited, sometimes <b> is your simplest way 
to get a little variation in an otherwise bland visual display.


On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 01:22 PM, 
thelist-request at lists.evolt.org wrote:

>
>
>> If you embolden text for the sake of emboldening it, it strikes me as 
>> a
>> visual formatting issue and not a semantic one.
>
> exactly
>
>> Thus, perhaps one should use <span style='font-weight:bold'></span>
>> (or something) instead of <b></b>?
>
> we've already covered this
>
> B is much better than SPAN in this example
>
> B is intended specifically for the stated purpose of emboldening text
>
>
>> The other way to look at it would be - why would you wish to
>> embolden text for no reason?
>
> well, i specifically said it was for a visual reason
>
> a visual reason <em>is</em> a reason
>
> ;o)
>
> rudy