Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
Dear WSG Team, It's been my pleasure to be with you all these days. Now that I am not doing CMS any more, I wish to be removed from the list. I could not find any link on the site to unsubscribe. So, I request the moderator to remove me from the list. Thanks in advance. Hope you all enjoy continuing with Web and CMS. With warm regards, S. Gudur __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:09:59 -0700, Ben Curtis wrote: Both of your examples make the same amount of sense, semantically. Bold text does not mean anything different than non-bold text, and therefore boldness has no semantic meaning. In theory, I agree with you. But in practice - the B tag has a history, it has been used to imply boldness of the marked-up text. I think using it the fashion you are describing introduces maintenance issues. I think the developer who approaches this later will be confused. 'Why did they use a B tag here? Are they implying boldness? It isn't semantic. What were they trying to achieve?' For this reason alone I would use a span tag instead of a b in these circumstances. IMHO Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
Without trying to drag this on Ben, I still fail to see the purpose of using the B tag over the SPAN tag and don't genuinely believe I'm declaring my own preference as a standard. If backward compatibility is the only argument then it only goes slightly further back than SPAN so the weight of that isn't sufficient to warrant what, to me, a human, doesn't *seem* logical. SPAN has a greater range of acceptance, past, present and future, than B, as an empty tag to hook a style to, which is the only purpose of this. Non-backwards compatibility of the B tag is screen rendered bold text which may not be the purpose of the class hook, now, or in the future. SPAN is neutral which is what we want. Without turning this into a tit-for-tat, it's hard to resolve because, as you say, it's a debatable subject and one, really, that should be cleared up, whether for my benefit or the rest of the captive audience. Believe me, I'm all for learning and open to suggestions, but unless I get a sound and reasoned argument as to why B is *better* than SPAN, I won't be applying it to any markup I produce. My last word: SPAN, as a neutral hook for adding inline styles, is the recommended logical solution. Time for a cold one I think... ;) I agree fully that this is a debatable topic, with merits (non-CSS backwards compatibility) and liabilities (possibly greater *human* incompatibility). However, I'll always get worked up when people declare their own preference is the standard, and I think it's useful to point out such a fallacy. Such declarations, although well- intentioned, do not help a person struggling to understand the standard. -- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
Without trying to drag this on Ben... Indeed. I suspect this discussion is one of those that a lot of people would be in agreement if they were in the same room, but in email it seems like there may be more disagreement than intended. Tends to produce many emails, especially from folks like me who find themselves arguing a point they aren't fully behind... If backward compatibility is the only argument then it only goes slightly further back than SPAN ... Non-backwards compatibility of the B tag is screen rendered bold text which may not be the purpose of the class hook, now, or in the future. SPAN is neutral which is what we want. The original poster was trying to highlight certain text. He suggested the b tag but worried that it was deprecated. My response was that it is not deprecated, would provide the highlight he wanted in non-CSS browsers, and as valid XHTML1.1 it would also be as forward-compatible as any other option (because my contention is that for any XHTML 1.0 or 1.1 document to become XHTML 2.0, it must be translated, perhaps with XSLT). I was not advocating the b tag over the span tag, but merely pointing that it is a valid option. Whether it is the correct option is debatable. So the compatibility thing is not that span was introduced later, but that b would produce the desired effect when a browser is incapable of rendering the CSS. This is not necessarily about non-CSS browsers (e.g., Netscape 3, Lynx), because a popular technique for handling browsers with poor market share is to deliver no CSS to them. People are discussing whether this should be done with IE5 (Win and Mac), which certainly could render a span as bold but might not be given the chance. Time for a cold one I think... ;) A brilliant idea. Always up for a cool pint. Lemme finish breakfast first. :) -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On 18 Aug 2005, at 8:50 PM, Lea de Groot wrote: I think the developer who approaches this later will be confused. Documenting your work eliminates this, nothing too fancy required... just some comments on how and why things are done a particular way. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
You are correct, it hasn't been 'officially' deprecated but as visual tags and not logical ones; CSS offers a better long term solution. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/elements.html seems to agree. Regarding books, if you carry extra [per book] information in the context of the book title then a definition list would suit your needs. CITE would certainly play a part within the list. b is not deprecated, it just has no semantic value and in the fight to get people to markup their content semantically instead of visually, b and i became clear targets. Unfortunately, this means that many people think they should use strong and em when they really should use b and i. It's similar to the people who bend over backwards in order to put tabular data in some sort of floating list construct, just because they think that CSS-styled markup should not have the table tag. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Ben Curtis wrote: That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not aware of any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can anyone cite such a declaration? They are included in XHTML 1.1 (Presentation Module) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/ abstract_modules.html#s_presentationmodule They were not deprecated in XHTML 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes As I understand it, nothing was deprecated in XHTML 1.0; in fact, they don't define the term for possible use: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#defs HTML 4.01 didn't deprecate anything; it only clarified HTML 4.0. b and i are not deprecated in 4.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/changes.html#h-A.3.1.2 If the W3C misspoke, or if they are indeed deprecated but not listed as such in the common specs... well, it's no wonder such rumors persist! Please look at the date of each document. The document listing the items as deprecated is the most recent. HTML 4.01 Specification http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999 XHTML(tm) 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition) A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#defs W3C Recommendation 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002 Modularization of XHTML(tm) W3C Recommendation 10 April 2001 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/ XHTML(tm) 1.1 - Module-based XHTML http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/Overview.html#toc W3C Recommendation 31 May 2001 HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ W3C Working Draft 30 June 2005 (includes the information regarding deprecated b and i tags) If the W3C misspoke... Do you really believe that the W3C misspoke because they have a working draft with change/updates to the current HTML/XHTML recommendations? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Aug 17, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Julie Romanowski wrote:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Ben Curtis wrote:
That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not
aware of any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can
anyone cite such a declaration?
...
Please look at the date of each document. The document listing the
items
as deprecated is the most recent.
HTML 4.01 Specification http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
cover.html#minitoc
W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999
XHTML(tm) 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second
Edition)
A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#defs
W3C Recommendation 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002
Modularization of XHTML(tm)
W3C Recommendation 10 April 2001
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/
XHTML(tm) 1.1 - Module-based XHTML
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/Overview.html#toc
W3C Recommendation 31 May 2001
HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/
W3C Working Draft 30 June 2005 (includes the information regarding
deprecated b and i tags)
Looking solely at the dates would lead people to believe that we
should currently be coding to XHTML2 specs, since that was most
recently updated, but that would be wrong. Dates are useful in
finding what spec is the most recent, but a spec is only a standard
once it reaches recommendation status. The HTML Techniques spec you
cite is a Working Draft, and they state in the prologue:
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement
by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be
updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other
than work in progress.
It's not a standard yet. It's important to recognize that standards
that are developed publicly will present a number of documents from
official sources that are not, in themselves, definitive. It's
important to cite the documents that are definitive, and only in the
manner that they claim to be definitive. For example, had the HTML
Techniques been a Recommendation, it would still be inappropriate to
cite this entry as a declaration of the deprecation of the b and i
elements (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/#em ). It's
inappropriate because the document is not intended to define the
state of elements, but only the techniques for using them.
If the W3C misspoke... Do you really believe that the W3C misspoke
because they have a working draft with change/updates to the current
HTML/XHTML recommendations?
Nothing can change or update a standard; only a new standard may be
adopted. The portion you quoted stated that b and i as elements were
deprecated in the HTML 4.01 and XHTML Recommendations. I have yet to
find anything that would indicate that this is true. Thus, the W3C
misspoke.
Now, that all said, I think that we're on pretty much the same side
on this issue. Edward also points out:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 11:51 PM, Edward Clarke wrote:
You are correct, it hasn't been 'officially' deprecated but as
visual tags
and not logical ones; CSS offers a better long term solution.
When there are only semantically inappropriate tags to use (e.g., the
a tag as the original poster had implemented), then I opt for
semantically empty tags, with a class applied, and the class is
styled. Some opt for the semantically empty span tag; I opt for the
semantically empty b tag. In both cases, they must be styled to suit:
b.bookTitle { font-weight:bold; }
If you treat the b or i tag (or any other valid markup) as
semantically empty, then treat it in your CSS as having no default
style. The only advantage is backwards compatibility with non-CSS
browsers. As a long term solution, one must keep in mind that the
declared doctype is just as much a part of the document as the other
tags in it. Therefore, if I were to convert the doctype to, say,
XHTML 2, then it would be just as easy to use XSLT to convert span
class=bookTitle to something appropriate as to convert b
class=bookTitle to the same thing. If your doctype states XHTML
1.0 Strict, then that's the standard it needs to conform to.
--
Ben Curtis : webwright
bivia : a personal web studio
http://www.bivia.com
v: (818) 507-6613
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
I see your point about backward compatibility but B and I aren't
technically, semantically empty. (If that makes sense).
span style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/span
makes sense...
b style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/b
does not.
B and I being visual tags should be removed from the markup and styled via
SPAN or inherited from its parent element, the styled using CSS. It's a
fundamental aspect of removing presentation from content; something I
believe should fail (but doesn't) the validator on any STRICT DTD check.
Now, that all said, I think that we're on pretty much the same side
on this issue. Edward also points out:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 11:51 PM, Edward Clarke wrote:
You are correct, it hasn't been 'officially' deprecated but as
visual tags
and not logical ones; CSS offers a better long term solution.
When there are only semantically inappropriate tags to use (e.g., the
a tag as the original poster had implemented), then I opt for
semantically empty tags, with a class applied, and the class is
styled. Some opt for the semantically empty span tag; I opt for the
semantically empty b tag. In both cases, they must be styled to suit:
b.bookTitle { font-weight:bold; }
If you treat the b or i tag (or any other valid markup) as
semantically empty, then treat it in your CSS as having no default
style. The only advantage is backwards compatibility with non-CSS
browsers. As a long term solution, one must keep in mind that the
declared doctype is just as much a part of the document as the other
tags in it. Therefore, if I were to convert the doctype to, say,
XHTML 2, then it would be just as easy to use XSLT to convert span
class=bookTitle to something appropriate as to convert b
class=bookTitle to the same thing. If your doctype states XHTML
1.0 Strict, then that's the standard it needs to conform to.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Aug 17, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Edward Clarke wrote: I see your point about backward compatibility but B and I aren't technically, semantically empty. (If that makes sense). span style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/span makes sense... b style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/b does not. Both of your examples make the same amount of sense, semantically. Bold text does not mean anything different than non-bold text, and therefore boldness has no semantic meaning. Consider the semantics of these (fictional) tags: compassNorth/compass surnameNorth/surname dictionary-entryNorth/dictionary-entry Those are three different meanings that North can have. In your example, the span'd Harry Potter is the same as the b'd Harry Potter, and that would be true regardless of what content you wanted to span or b. That's why I say b is semantically empty. What you are saying though, is that it doesn't make sense to declare that the b tag not render as bold. To which I reply, in a CSS browser, none of the presentation properties should be derived from the tag, and all should be derived from the CSS. Why single out a specific, meaningless tag? All presentation must be in the CSS, regardless of the tag. B and I being visual tags should be removed from the markup and styled via SPAN or inherited from its parent element, the styled using CSS. img is also a visual tag. This is likely the reason that img was going to be removed (like b and i) in XHTML2, until a developer outcry insisted it remain for backwards compatibility (nonsense, I say -- if you're moving to XHTML2, the img tag is the easiest thing to transform). I wholeheartedly agree with removing presentation from the markup. This is why in my original post I stated that using b gains you backwards compatibility, but you *must* style it appropriately, as if it were a span; otherwise, you fail to separate. Allow me to reiterate: - b and i are not deprecated (i.e., valid but marked for future removal) - they are semantically empty, and must be thoroughly styled - they achieve a semblance of backwards compatibility Some point out that b and i are deprecated because they are not in XHTML2. This argument is soft at best; for example, the very document pointing out that b and i are deprecated requires a use of the label element that is incompatible with XHTML2. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/#label http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod- list.html#edef_list_label Those trying to code their XHTML1.0 Strict to be forward-compatible with XHTML2 have their work cut out for them. It's a fundamental aspect of removing presentation from content; something I believe should fail (but doesn't) the validator on any STRICT DTD check. Don't confuse valid with preferred technique. The Strict DTD is a different DTD than the Transitional or Frameset DTDs, and it is not better or worse, nor are the other DTDs less strict (as in rigidly applied), they just include more options. What you are proposing is that the Strict DTD should not include b and i; it's a valid argument, but it does not reflect the approved Recommendation of the W3C. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] html design - best practices
hello, i've been lurking for a while and commenting occasionally, and i appreciate the change of venue. i am a designer learning about development. i have become more interested in web standards for the past year. thanks for the post about westciv (x)html class, i feel that i am ready for it now. here's my question. i have a page with text that i want highlighted. i currently have the text in atext/a and styled with css. what is the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as strong is not what i want, because i don't want someone to get yelled at by their screen reader. i guess what i am looking to do is emphasize the text so it will stand out on the page and be treated the same by a screen reader. is this what the em tag is for? dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have a page with text that i
want highlighted. i
currently have the text in atext/a and styled
with css. what is
the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as
strong is not
what i want, because i don't want someone to get
yelled at by their
screen reader. i guess what i am looking to do is
emphasize the text so
it will stand out on the page and be treated the
same by a screen
reader. is this what the em tag is for?
Without knowing more about the context, I think a
span tag would be appropriate. As usually, give the
tag a meaningful class name that describes the text
being highlighted and use that consistently, and then
style the tag in CSS as needed:
span class=errormsgYou have an error in your form
input./span
style
span.errormsg { color: red; }
/style
Do you have any specific examples?
-Sam
--
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
Sam Brown wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have a page with text that i
want highlighted. i
currently have the text in atext/a and styled
with css. what is
the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as
strong is not
what i want, because i don't want someone to get
yelled at by their
screen reader. i guess what i am looking to do is
emphasize the text so
it will stand out on the page and be treated the
same by a screen
reader. is this what the em tag is for?
Without knowing more about the context, I think a
span tag would be appropriate. As usually, give the
tag a meaningful class name that describes the text
being highlighted and use that consistently, and then
style the tag in CSS as needed:
span class=errormsgYou have an error in your form
input./span
style
span.errormsg { color: red; }
/style
Do you have any specific examples?
-Sam
in a monologue i am listing book titles and i have them styled bold
(css) in an a tag. (i.e., nag hammadi library, the holy qur'an, the
dead sea scrolls, etc.)
does this help? i haven't put the page up, but i can if you'd like.
dwain
--
Dwain Alford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alforddesigngroup.com
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.
Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
Semantic = meaning. What is the meaning of highlighting the text? If it's a design decision the use SPAN If it's a meaning decision use STRONG or EM Think of EM as a rise in pitch when reading something out to someone. Think of STRONG as slow and controlled while pointing your finger kinda speech. -Original Message- here's my question. i have a page with text that i want highlighted. i currently have the text in atext/a and styled with css. what is the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as strong is not what i want, because i don't want someone to get yelled at by their screen reader. i guess what i am looking to do is emphasize the text so it will stand out on the page and be treated the same by a screen reader. is this what the em tag is for? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
Hi Dwain
I try to avoid using spans as much as possible. It's not that they are bad,
but that they could be avoided in many instances.
It takes me back to something that an editor once taught me. She said that I
should think twice before using the word that. It can usually be removed
and the sentence written more efficiently. I took that advice to heart and
use it the same way that I would code using spans.
Get the idea? A page full of spans is like a paragraph full of thats.
Think twice before using a span. Should this section be a header, link or a
definition list? If not, feel free to use a span. It is great for changing
small sections of inline text.
I also like to use spans creatively with CSS. a href=blah
spannbsp;/span/a. Use absolute positioning to place the span at the
top of the page, make it a block and place a background image to create a
secondary link on another part of the page (Was this from Andy Budd or
Stopdesign?)
I've also used spans h3blah spanedit/spanh3 to take the edit or
whatever text and do something different with it, such as float it to the
right. Remember, you don't need to put a class on your spans.
If you use your spans sparingly and selectively, you can just target them by
their parents:
a span, dt span, label span {font-weight:normal;}
h3 span {float:right;}
Have fun with that there tag.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:46 AM
To: wsg
Subject: [WSG] html design - best practices
hello,
i've been lurking for a while and commenting occasionally, and i
appreciate the change of venue. i am a designer learning about
development. i have become more interested in web standards for the
past year. thanks for the post about westciv (x)html class, i feel that
i am ready for it now.
here's my question. i have a page with text that i want highlighted. i
currently have the text in atext/a and styled with css. what is
the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as strong is not
what i want, because i don't want someone to get yelled at by their
screen reader. i guess what i am looking to do is emphasize the text so
it will stand out on the page and be treated the same by a screen
reader. is this what the em tag is for?
dwain
--
Dwain Alford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alforddesigngroup.com
The artist may use any form which his expression demands;
for his inner impulse must find suitable expression.
Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
It's a valid point actually. DIVitis and SPANitis are rife and elements can normally be styled using inherent selectors. The fact you have the text wrapped in A means you can approach the CSS from with #container a -Original Message- Think twice before using a span ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
--- Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to avoid using spans as much as possible. It's not that they are bad, but that they could be avoided in many instances. I agree with your comments here, Ted, I just didn't have any context to provide a more meaningful explanation. Personally, I avoid spans, I'm just not comfortable with them except in very specific instances. I'm not sure I would put these book titles in a tags unless they are actually anchoring something. If it is an anchor, then: div class=booktitles a href=scroll.htmlDead Sea Scrolls/a a href=otherbook.htmlSome other book/a /div And then styling all anchors inside booktitles would be my preferred process. Again, without knowing the situation, needs, etc., it's hard to give suggestions. When it comes down to it, Dwain, I think you need to use what you are comfortable with, that meets your needs, and meets the level of symantic meaning/value and conformity to standards that you are willing to accept. That's probably more philosophy than is actually needed... but there it is. :) -Sam -- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
Sam Brown wrote: I'm not sure I would put these book titles in a tags unless they are actually anchoring something. they are not anchoring anything. strong isn't what i want and b is deprecated (?), so what is the practice to highlight a word or words? i knew that i would some how verbalize my intent. dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam Brown wrote: I'm not sure I would put these book titles in a tags unless they are actually anchoring something. they are not anchoring anything. strong isn't what i want and b is deprecated (?), so what is the practice to highlight a word or words? b is not deprecated, it just has no semantic value and in the fight to get people to markup their content semantically instead of visually, b and i became clear targets. Unfortunately, this means that many people think they should use strong and em when they really should use b and i. It's similar to the people who bend over backwards in order to put tabular data in some sort of floating list construct, just because they think that CSS-styled markup should not have the table tag. From your description, it sounds like you want the b or span tag. You want book titles to be bold; there is no clear tag for a book title (although there was a thread earlier in the year advocating cite I think), so you want a tag with semantic meaning like span or b. Then, add a semantic-like class name, such as: b class=bookTitleInnocents Abroad/b Then style the class as you see fit. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
If the books are mentioned in a sentence, such as In the dead sea scrolls, someone said foo, then I agree completely with using cite. pIn citethe dead sea scrolls/cite someone said qfoo/q/p or whatever. One problem with many examples (including mine) of cite is that they always are paired with a quote, but this absolutely does not have to be the case. although there was a thread earlier in the yearadvocating cite I think
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
b is not deprecated, it just has no semantic value and in the fight to get people to markup their content semantically instead of visually, b and i became clear targets. Unfortunately, this means that many people think they should use strong and em when they really should use b and i. It's similar to the people who bend over backwards in order to put tabular data in some sort of floating list construct, just because they think that CSS-styled markup should not have the table tag. Here is a W3C Working Draft that addresses b and i: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ The em and strong elements were designed to indicate structural emphasis that may be rendered in a variety of ways (font style changes, speech inflection changes, etc.). The b and i elements were deprecated in HTML 4.01 and XHTML because they were used to create a specific visual effect. It is not difficult to keep presentation separate from content. Using style sheets does this nicely. As for tabular data, of course it should be displayed in a table. That is what the tag is for. Using tables for page layout, however, is a different story. Using tables to design Web pages is an accessibility nightmare. Our accessibility guys give presentations to developers demonstrating the problems that arise with tables-based layout. After they have had the opportunity to listen to what a screen reader sees most of them are more then willing to change their tables-based layout to a div-based layout. We are also able to help them get the very same layout without tables. Again, style sheets do the job. Julie Romanowski State Farm Insurance Company J2EE Engagement Team phone: 309-735-5248 cell: 309-532-4027 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:12:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in a monologue i am listing book titles and i have them styled bold (css) in an a tag. (i.e., nag hammadi library, the holy qur'an, the dead sea scrolls, etc.) Have you seen the cite tag? It sounds like it might be of use to you - http://webdesign.about.com/library/tags/bltags-cite.htm If nothing else strikes you as semantically meningful then I would fall back to a span, rather than an anchor (a tags). Personally, I only use anchors with href or name (etc) attributes, I dont use it on its own. HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] they are not anchoring anything. strong isn't what i want and b is deprecated (?), so what is the practice to highlight a word or words? Using boldface or italics is the usual method. These are semantically represented by the strong and em markup. Other options might be to change the colour or shade of the text, or to give it a different background colour or shade. Underlining is a bit problematic in that it runs through the descenders of letters that have them and can make reading more difficult. It is a bit ugly to my mind too, as well as being potentially confusing in a web context since links are underlined by default. As soon as you stray from em and strong you are probably going to lose the emphasis of your text for users of non-visual browsers and other non-standard devices that can't convey the changed colour or shade to the user. I can tell you are having trouble describing what you want to do and possibly why. Is it possible that you could give us an example and some context so that we can understand a bit more? -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Aug 16, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Julie Romanowski wrote: Here is a W3C Working Draft that addresses b and i: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ The em and strong elements were designed to indicate structural emphasis that may be rendered in a variety of ways (font style changes, speech inflection changes, etc.). The b and i elements were deprecated in HTML 4.01 and XHTML because they were used to create a specific visual effect. That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not aware of any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can anyone cite such a declaration? They are included in XHTML 1.1 (Presentation Module) http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/ abstract_modules.html#s_presentationmodule They were not deprecated in XHTML 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes As I understand it, nothing was deprecated in XHTML 1.0; in fact, they don't define the term for possible use: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#defs HTML 4.01 didn't deprecate anything; it only clarified HTML 4.0. b and i are not deprecated in 4.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/changes.html#h-A.3.1.2 If the W3C misspoke, or if they are indeed deprecated but not listed as such in the common specs... well, it's no wonder such rumors persist! -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
G'day That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not aware of any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can anyone cite such a declaration? Cant find one myself. The closest is: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15./2 (which talks about some font style elements): //Although they are not all deprecated http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/conform.html#deprecated, their use is discouraged in favor of style sheets./ / /So tt,i,b,big and small are not deprecated while strike, s and u *are* officially deprecated. Either way, as standards advocates, I believe we *should* avoid these (and other) presentational elements and attributes in our (x)html, whether deprecated or not. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
Ben Curtis wrote: On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam Brown wrote: From your description, it sounds like you want the b or span tag. You want book titles to be bold; there is no clear tag for a book title (although there was a thread earlier in the year advocating cite I think), so you want a tag with semantic meaning like span or b. Then, add a semantic-like class name, such as: b class=bookTitleInnocents Abroad/b Then style the class as you see fit. thanks ben, i think that this is the solution. although i said a list of book titles i was not meaning li list. sometimes i have trouble communicating what i mean; and i've been in the communications field since 1976. dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] html design - best practices
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Curtis wrote: b class=bookTitleInnocents Abroad/b Then style the class as you see fit. ...i think that this is the solution. although i said a list of book titles i was not meaning li list. If it is indeed a list, why not mark it up as a list? You could give the list a class and style it to suit your requirements, it need not appear as a bulleted or numbered vertical list. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
Lea de Groot wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:12:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in a monologue i am listing book titles and i have them styled bold (css) in an a tag. (i.e., nag hammadi library, the holy qur'an, the dead sea scrolls, etc.) Have you seen the cite tag? It sounds like it might be of use to you - http://webdesign.about.com/library/tags/bltags-cite.htm If nothing else strikes you as semantically meningful then I would fall back to a span, rather than an anchor (a tags). Personally, I only use anchors with href or name (etc) attributes, I dont use it on its own. HIH Lea thanks lea! that's exactly what i needed. thanks to all who responded. i want to do it with standards compliance. dwain -- Dwain Alford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning The Spiritual In Art ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] html design - best practices
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:56:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks to all who responded. i want to do it with standards compliance. Glad to help! An aside: Bear in mind that you can do the most awful table-based design and be 'standards-compliant'. Once you've learnt the rules and know how to validate your code, then its time to go onto the next step - making your markup accessible and semantically meaningful. Standards compliance is a tool. Accessible, meaningful pages are a goal. Sounds like you know that, but haven't quite got a complete handle on the lingo yet :) Time and work will fix that :) warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
