Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > Bill Walton wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Greg Donald <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I didn't say it was invalid HTML. �I said it was *bad practice*. >>> >>> Yeah, that's why it's in the spec, 'cause no one should use it. >>> >>> /rolls eyes >> >> +1. If only marnen were in charge.... ;-) > > The HTML 5 spec itself says <b> is only to be used as a last resort if > no other element is more appropriate. IMHO, that's never the case: even > if nothing more specific can be found, <span> is more appropriate than > <b>.
I have to agree with Marnen. Are we criticizing people for emphasizing exactly what the HTML5 spec states now? I agree that <b> is maintained in the spec solely for backward compatibility. I see no use case for a "proper" use of <b>. That tag suggests too specific a styling (boldened). As recommended by the spec <strong>, <em> or <mark> are more appropriate in most cases. Here is the <strong>incorrect</strong> example presented in the spec: <p><b>WARNING!</b> Do not frob the barbinator!</p> In the above case the appropriate tag would be <strong> not <b>. The <strong> tag suggests "WARNING!" should be presented "strongly" without specifically suggesting "boldened." That may mean, "Display WARNING! in yellow (and bold too)." -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
