On Monday, May 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Micky Hulse wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM, tedd <tedd.sperl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really?
> > How does the blind via readers, such as JAWS, understand what a <B> is?
> > First, never use <B> -- or <I> for that matter.
> > Second, use <strong> or <em> instead. Readers can understand and render
> > STRONG and EMPHASIZED text, but not <B> and <I> text -- those tags mean
> > nothing and that's the reason why they are not encouraged for use and even
> > removed from XHTML.
> > Third, if neither of those tags (i.e., <strong> or <em> ) work for you, they
> > try using a class (or an id) with a css rule of:
> [OT]
> Tedd, it seems like you are spreading a little bit of mis-information here.
> * <i> — was italic, now for text in an “alternate voice,” such as
> foreign words, technical terms and typographically italicized text
> * <b> — was bold, now for “stylistically offset” text, such as
> keywords and typographically emboldened text (W3C:Markup, WHATWG)
> * <em> — was emphasis, now for stress emphasis, i.e., something you’d
> pronounce differently (W3C:Markup, WHATWG)
> * <strong> — was for stronger emphasis, now for strong importance,
> basically the same thing (stronger emphasis or importance is now
> indicated by nesting) (W3C:Markup, WHATWG)
> – http://html5doctor.com/i-b-em-strong-element/
> Seems to me the original posted just wanted to "stylistically offset"
> or "bold" the last name... I dunno, maybe I am wrong, but here's no
> good reason to stress "stronger" emphasis on the last name.
> There's a time and a place and a reason to use one over the other.
> Also, I don't think <b> and <i> have been removed from XHTML... In
> fact, they are not even deprecated in XHTML.
> Ok, getting off of my soapbox now. :D
> [/OT]
If you are only make the last name bold for stylistic purposes you should use 
CSS and a class. If you have text that needs to be <em>phasized or <strong>ly 
put use the appropriate tags.


Joshua Kehn | josh.k...@gmail.com

Reply via email to