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

Mark Gallagher mark at cyberfuddle.com
Fri Aug 2 06:25:02 CDT 2002


Adam Fahy wrote:
> 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?

And if he does?  It seems an incredibly stupid thing to do from my POV,
but then, sadly, not everyone in the World Wide Web shares my POV.
Weird, huh?

>> 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?

<span> and <div>, too.  Well, sort of.

<span> indicates a selection of text, and <div> a selection of elements
(?).  The selection has no meaning, but surely the mere fact of it
*being* a selection is a meaning in and of itself?

>> Visuals are OK.
>
> Why construct straw men?  Do you feel you can't argue against the point?

Adam, calm down.  Please.  If we go for the agressive "argue against the
point"-type statement, we'll end up in a flame war.  Then we'll end up
portioning out tip fines.  Then I'll end up broke and in the gutter,
drinking cheap cola and begging strangers for scraps of HTML knowledge,
because I'm simply too tired to think of any decent tips right now.

And I don't think I'm ready at 17 to live in the gutter just yet :-).

>>> 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.

It's an argument for making sure your classes make semantic sense.  If
you've got <span class="red">this text is red</span>, and you alter your
stylesheet so that .red is no longer "color: #f00;" but rather "color:
#00f;", you'll end up with <span class="red">this text is blue</span>.
And you'll feel pretty stupid.

So make sure your class names will make sense even if you change the
rules defining them within your CSS.  Hmm, it's a pity I've already used
that as a tip.

> 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.

But a good answer.

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




More information about the thelist mailing list