In general, this is a polite forum and whoever you are referring to as Mucky-Mucks would probably tell you, I hope in more polite and respectful way, that among the many reasons for well-designed code is portability across different rendering engines. The notion of using classes and not embedding style elements in code is not an academic bloviation but sensible code structure. How can it more bloated to write <span class = "BB""> than <i> - both require closing tags and the former forces the rendering device to obey your design. You are free of course, to have your opinion and write your code however you wish, but rude language does not help you make your case.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg <rar...@banet.net>wrote: > At 13:06 -0500 on 11/08/2010, go...@fred.net wrote about Re: <i> vs <em> > and <b> vs <strong>: > > > If you have an at-all-common case for the content of your site requiring a >> specific presentation, this is very simply accomplished with a new span >> class. <span class="shipname">USS Enterprise</span>, defining span.shipname >> in your CSS as font-style: Italic; >> >> On an author's site, for instance, it might be common convention for >> internal monologues - the thoughts of characters - to be rendered in >> italics. So create a new span class for 'thought'. And so forth. >> >> Whenever the writer has an intention for XYZ bit of content to be rendered >> in a certain way, there is a reason, an identifiable and underlying >> definition to the content within the context. Try to respect that however >> possible. There are good reasons why this is important, why lots of really >> big brains have spent a lot of thought on things like this. Those of us who >> 'preach' adherence to those guidelines do so because we respect their >> reasons. >> > > > While it is all well and good to go to this extent to bow-down to the > Ivory-Tower Mucky-Mucks, it can lead to ridiculous markup. Having to add > span tags (at 20-30 characters per tag) just to give a ship name in the > middle of a sentence and having another span (or class on the <p>) for > thoughts and another for some other purpose instead of just using the i/b/u > tags to document how you want the enclosed text to be displayed instead of > what the text represents (with the CSS controlling how it is to be > displayed) leads to major bloat compared to just using the correct tag for > the presentational display. > > So long as you do not need to be able to parse out Ship Names and Thoughts > then using the presentational tags (and CCS to edit how they are displayed) > is IMO good enough. When I need to be able to change the display at moment's > notice (and need to control different types of context) then the bloated > markup may have some purpose. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "BBEdit Talk" > discussion group on Google Groups. > To post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bbedit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<bbedit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > <http://groups.google.com/group/bbedit?hl=en> > If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please > email "supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group. > Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "BBEdit Talk" discussion group on Google Groups. To post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bbedit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/bbedit?hl=en> If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please email "supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group. Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit>
