Re: [PHP] Bold links
At 10:10 AM -0700 5/10/11, Micky Hulse wrote: Looking at your site: http://sperling.com/ Viewing the source code on your homepage, I see b used 15 times in the body copy. I am assuming that maybe you have no control over that portion of your site due to the CMS you are using? Could you imagine using strong in all those instances where you used b? Don't you think that would be overkill? Sorry to everyone for taking this so OT for the PHP list. Micky: If you look at my site now, you'll see that the issue has been fixed. http://sperling.com/ I vaguely remember using b tags in the markup for SEO considerations with the idea that I was going to change them to strong with a search/replace. Unfortunately, that did not happen until now. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
At 1:46 PM -0400 5/10/11, Adam Richardson wrote: The rest of the list does show you've read a fair amount in the past month (just as others on this list, including me), but what does it do to specifically support your argument? It was not presented as a list that supported my argument, but rather as a list of references I read within the last month -- just to show that I am keeping current on a gamut of topics. While people may debate the use of b and i tags, it is clear that their use is not recommended by many -- and that was my point -- and the reason why I do not support their use. YMMV. Again, I greatly respect you, Ted, I have learned much from your posts, and this discussion does not detract from that. However, I want to make sure the developers subscribing to the list will consider the use of the i and b tags as recommended by the W3C in (X)HTML5. Adam Please provide the reference where the W3C recommends using the b and i tags. I would like to read that. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
At 3:55 PM +0100 5/10/11, Stuart Dallas wrote: On Tuesday, 10 May 2011 at 15:41, tedd wrote: The world is changing and I don't think any organization can dictate what is the right/wrong way to do anything. But the good thing here is that we are left to our own judgement as to what we support and what we condemn. In my judgment, the b and i tags present more problems than they solve so I will continue to not use those tags and speak against them. While I don't necessarily disagree with your point about HTML5 bringing back prehistoric tags, I do think it's important to remember that the fundamental reason for having the spec is that everyone (developers, browsers, screenreaders, etc) are working from the same guidelines. You have to assume that HTML5 consumption devices (both software and hardware) will follow the spec, so as a developer I think it's important to do the same regardless of your philosophical arguments against the decisions made when that spec was written. -Stuart Stuart: As always, you bring wisdom to the argument. My only concern is that I do have blind users who applaud my disused of b and i tags. Regardless of the specs, I tend to listen to users who have to live with the specs. It appears that much of the decision-making process have been influenced by developers to accommodate large companies (i.e., Google) rather than the disabled. In fact, many of these companies still use CAPTCHA's. So, until I have blind users tell me it doesn't matter any more, I shall try not use these tags. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
Hi Tedd! On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: I vaguely remember using b tags in the markup for SEO considerations with the idea that I was going to change them to strong with a search/replace. Unfortunately, that did not happen until now. Thanks for letting me know. Hehe! I dig it! :) I definitely dig your site btw. I have found several of the pages helpful over the years. Thanks for the good discussion. Cheers, Micky -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:48 PM, tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: At 1:46 PM -0400 5/10/11, Adam Richardson wrote: The rest of the list does show you've read a fair amount in the past month (just as others on this list, including me), but what does it do to specifically support your argument? It was not presented as a list that supported my argument, but rather as a list of references I read within the last month -- just to show that I am keeping current on a gamut of topics. While people may debate the use of b and i tags, it is clear that their use is not recommended by many -- and that was my point -- and the reason why I do not support their use. YMMV. Again, I greatly respect you, Ted, I have learned much from your posts, and this discussion does not detract from that. However, I want to make sure the developers subscribing to the list will consider the use of the i and b tags as recommended by the W3C in (X)HTML5. Adam Please provide the reference where the W3C recommends using the b and i tags. I would like to read that. Ted, you said: First, never use B -- or I for that matter. Micky pointed out the changes in HTML5, linking to an HTML5 Doctor Article noting the new semantics of the i and b tags: – http://html5doctor.com/i-b-em-strong-element/ You brought your authority: ...my information/position stems from my understanding derived from both daily practice and constant reading. In addition to reading links like the above (which I read btw), I also read several list provided by disability concerns, such as webdev.lists.d.umn.edu being the best. In addition to all that, I also read several technical books each week re these subjects. For example, within this last month I've purchased and read HTML5 by Lawson, Smashing CSS by Meyer, 100 Things by Weinschenk, Learning Web Design by Robbins, Designing with the Mind in Mind by Johnson, Forms that work by Jarret, Build your own web site the right way by Lloyd, PHP 5.3 by Doyle, and Expert PHP and MySQL by Cuniosoa. That's a lot of reading, -- so I think I keep up with what's going on. I pointed out that many of us read a great deal, and that the one source you cited specifically covering HTML5 speaks directly to the use of the b (and i) tags within HTML5. Additionally, let me say that the Lawson-Sharp book you mentioned is a great read. I also think that HTML5 Doctor (Micky's source) is a great read. HTML Doctor is a collaboration which includes both Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp: http://html5doctor.com/about/ I provided links to the HTML5 spec (draft): http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-element My position can be summarized as below: 1. I will try to follow the HTML5 spec (as it is now, and with the changes that occur when finalized): http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html 2. The HTML5 spec has given semantic meanings to the i and b tags, making them media-independent (nice summaries below, including the link Micky pointed to initially): http://html5doctor.com/your-questions-16/ http://html5doctor.com/i-b-em-strong-element/ 3. If one works through the other possible options (the spec points out many other tags that may be more appropriate) and the b or i tag still is the best fit, they should use it. 4. Of great importance, *I'm not advocating using the b or i tags for presentation purposes!* Rather, consistent with my earlier emails, I'm advocating their use for the situations outlined in the spec, when the semantics can enhance the markup (which is intended to eventually enhance the experience of those utilizing text-to-speech software.) Many prominent CSS resets have for some time zeroed out the visual styling of i and b tags, including Meyer's: http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/css/reset/ The use of the tag is now one of semantics, NOT PRESENTATION. The spec even points out: Style sheets can be used to format ihttp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/the-i-element.html#the-i-element elements, just like any other element can be restyled. Thus, it is not the case that content in ihttp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/the-i-element.html#the-i-element elements will necessarily be italicized. * * If you want to chat more about this topic, Tedd, you can email off list or we can meet up for a beer (although not this week, my wife is expecting any time ;) Adam -- Nephtali: A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework http://nephtaliproject.com
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:56 PM, tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: At 1:39 PM -0400 5/7/11, ad...@buskirkgraphics.com wrote: ?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;B' . $current_user-user_firstname . /B\n; echo 'B' . $current_user-user_lastname . /B\n; ? Richard L. Buskirk 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: Ted is right that the teaching in (X)HTML for the past several years has been to avoid use of b and i tags, essentially replacing them with strong and em tags, respectively. However, (X)HTML5 is changing the semantics of the b and i tags so they're use is again being encouraged (when appropriate): http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-elementThe intention is to improve the semantics available to web developers, with one of the hopes being that these nuanced differences will eventually enhance the experience of those who are using screen readers. So, while I don't necessarily recommend using a lot of b and i tags now, it's likely that in the near future their use will again be encouraged as HTML5 becomes better supported. Adam -- Nephtali: A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework http://nephtaliproject.com
RE: [PHP] Bold links
Thank you Adam, The answer was not in haste, but the most common direction of a lot of browsers. Personally I encourage the use of CSS over explicitly presentational HTML markup. The answer was to explain that it was not a php functionality. Some tend to toot a broken horn, about broken software and not see the question for what it is... Richard L. Buskirk -Original Message- From: Adam Richardson [mailto:simples...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:57 AM To: PHP-General Subject: Re: [PHP] Bold links On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:56 PM, tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote: At 1:39 PM -0400 5/7/11, ad...@buskirkgraphics.com wrote: ?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;B' . $current_user-user_firstname . /B\n; echo 'B' . $current_user-user_lastname . /B\n; ? Richard L. Buskirk 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: Ted is right that the teaching in (X)HTML for the past several years has been to avoid use of b and i tags, essentially replacing them with strong and em tags, respectively. However, (X)HTML5 is changing the semantics of the b and i tags so they're use is again being encouraged (when appropriate): http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-elementThe intention is to improve the semantics available to web developers, with one of the hopes being that these nuanced differences will eventually enhance the experience of those who are using screen readers. So, while I don't necessarily recommend using a lot of b and i tags now, it's likely that in the near future their use will again be encouraged as HTML5 becomes better supported. Adam -- Nephtali: A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework http://nephtaliproject.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
At 3:53 PM -0700 5/9/11, 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. Micky: I see that you brought your authority to the argument, namely: http://html5doctor.com/i-b-em-strong-element/ So, allow me to bring mine -- my information/position stems from my understanding derived from both daily practice and constant reading. In addition to reading links like the above (which I read btw), I also read several list provided by disability concerns, such as webdev.lists.d.umn.edu being the best. In addition to all that, I also read several technical books each week re these subjects. For example, within this last month I've purchased and read HTML5 by Lawson, Smashing CSS by Meyer, 100 Things by Weinschenk, Learning Web Design by Robbins, Designing with the Mind in Mind by Johnson, Forms that work by Jarret, Build your own web site the right way by Lloyd, PHP 5.3 by Doyle, and Expert PHP and MySQL by Cuniosoa. That's a lot of reading, -- so I think I keep up with what's going on. While it is true that html5 brought back tags such as b and i, but it has also brought back table for presentation. I leave the reader (and the future) to judge the wisdom of that decision. I think we all realize the problems that these tags bring to the table (no pun intended). We can either continue to resolve the problems they present or we can resort back to the way things were. As for me, I choose to never use b and i for anything PERIOD and to speak out against their use whenever I can. As for table in presentation, I am still undecided. While I would never use tables for the presentation of text, I often use simple tables (i.e., no nesting) for holding forms together. However, I am leaning toward not using tables for that either. The world is changing and I don't think any organization can dictate what is the right/wrong way to do anything. But the good thing here is that we are left to our own judgement as to what we support and what we condemn. In my judgment, the b and i tags present more problems than they solve so I will continue to not use those tags and speak against them. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On Tuesday, 10 May 2011 at 15:41, tedd wrote: At 3:53 PM -0700 5/9/11, 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. Micky: I see that you brought your authority to the argument, namely: http://html5doctor.com/i-b-em-strong-element/ So, allow me to bring mine -- my information/position stems from my understanding derived from both daily practice and constant reading. In addition to reading links like the above (which I read btw), I also read several list provided by disability concerns, such as webdev.lists.d.umn.edu being the best. In addition to all that, I also read several technical books each week re these subjects. For example, within this last month I've purchased and read HTML5 by Lawson, Smashing CSS by Meyer, 100 Things by Weinschenk, Learning Web Design by Robbins, Designing with the Mind in Mind by Johnson, Forms that work by Jarret, Build your own web site the right way by Lloyd, PHP 5.3 by Doyle, and Expert PHP and MySQL by Cuniosoa. That's a lot of reading, -- so I think I keep up with what's going on. While it is true that html5 brought back tags such as b and i, but it has also brought back table for presentation. I leave the reader (and the future) to judge the wisdom of that decision. I think we all realize the problems that these tags bring to the table (no pun intended). We can either continue to resolve the problems they present or we can resort back to the way things were. As for me, I choose to never use b and i for anything PERIOD and to speak out against their use whenever I can. As for table in presentation, I am still undecided. While I would never use tables for the presentation of text, I often use simple tables (i.e., no nesting) for holding forms together. However, I am leaning toward not using tables for that either. The world is changing and I don't think any organization can dictate what is the right/wrong way to do anything. But the good thing here is that we are left to our own judgement as to what we support and what we condemn. In my judgment, the b and i tags present more problems than they solve so I will continue to not use those tags and speak against them. While I don't necessarily disagree with your point about HTML5 bringing back prehistoric tags, I do think it's important to remember that the fundamental reason for having the spec is that everyone (developers, browsers, screenreaders, etc) are working from the same guidelines. You have to assume that HTML5 consumption devices (both software and hardware) will follow the spec, so as a developer I think it's important to do the same regardless of your philosophical arguments against the decisions made when that spec was written. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
[OT]
Thanks for the informative reply Tedd.
I respect your opinion and I don't think my approach is more right
than yours. I am wondering if this is just a DTD thing. I always use
an HTML 4.01 strict DTD and have not used an XHTML doctype in ages.
As far as I can tell, the specs in XHTML say not recommended, but I
can't find similar text in HTML 4.01 specs.
bJenkins/b vs. span class=bazJenkins/span
... to me, the latter seems to be overkill.
b class=bazJenkins/b
I can't of many times I have done the above... If I need to hook into
the b or i I might just do this (for example):
div id=wrapperBob bJenkins/b/div
#wrapper b { do whatever here }
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:41 AM, tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote:
As for me, I choose to never use b and i for anything PERIOD and to
speak out against their use whenever I can. As for table in presentation,
judgment, the b and i tags present more problems than they solve so I
will continue to not use those tags and speak against them.
Looking at your site:
http://sperling.com/
Viewing the source code on your homepage, I see b used 15 times in
the body copy.
I am assuming that maybe you have no control over that portion of your
site due to the CMS you are using?
Could you imagine using strong in all those instances where you used
b? Don't you think that would be overkill?
Sorry to everyone for taking this so OT for the PHP list.
[/OT]
Micky
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On May 10, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Micky Hulse wrote:
[OT]
Thanks for the informative reply Tedd.
I respect your opinion and I don't think my approach is more right
than yours. I am wondering if this is just a DTD thing. I always use
an HTML 4.01 strict DTD and have not used an XHTML doctype in ages.
As far as I can tell, the specs in XHTML say not recommended, but I
can't find similar text in HTML 4.01 specs.
bJenkins/b vs. span class=bazJenkins/span
... to me, the latter seems to be overkill.
b class=bazJenkins/b
I can't of many times I have done the above... If I need to hook into
the b or i I might just do this (for example):
div id=wrapperBob bJenkins/b/div
#wrapper b { do whatever here }
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:41 AM, tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com wrote:
As for me, I choose to never use b and i for anything PERIOD and to
speak out against their use whenever I can. As for table in presentation,
judgment, the b and i tags present more problems than they solve so I
will continue to not use those tags and speak against them.
Looking at your site:
http://sperling.com/
Viewing the source code on your homepage, I see b used 15 times in
the body copy.
I am assuming that maybe you have no control over that portion of your
site due to the CMS you are using?
Could you imagine using strong in all those instances where you used
b? Don't you think that would be overkill?
Sorry to everyone for taking this so OT for the PHP list.
[/OT]
Micky
Unless he is specifically saying to use .php extensions for url's I doubt it's
a CMS.
Regards,
-Josh
Joshua Kehn | josh.k...@gmail.com
http://joshuakehn.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 13:46 -0400, Adam Richardson wrote: Hi Tedd, How's it going? I'm very pleased with the emphasis on accessibility you bring to the PHP list, but I do believe you're overstating a few points below. So, allow me to bring mine -- my information/position stems from my understanding derived from both daily practice and constant reading. In addition to reading links like the above (which I read btw), I also read several list provided by disability concerns, such as webdev.lists.d.umn.edu being the best. In addition to all that, I also read several technical books each week re these subjects. I'm thankful you've had the chance to inform your perspective on development. For example, within this last month I've purchased and read HTML5 by Lawson, Smashing CSS by Meyer, 100 Things by Weinschenk, Learning Web Design by Robbins, Designing with the Mind in Mind by Johnson, Forms that work by Jarret, Build your own web site the right way by Lloyd, PHP 5.3 by Doyle, and Expert PHP and MySQL by Cuniosoa. That's a lot of reading, -- so I think I keep up with what's going on. Of the above books, which actually speaks to semantically appropriate markup, and of that subset, which actually references the rationale for the change in semantics of the b tag? And, of that subset, which argues against using the b and i tags as recommended in the editors draft? I know that the Lawson book you mentioned references the b tag on 59, but it does not disparage it's use (rather, it provides an example of the appropriate use under (X)HTML5.) So that source would seem to support the use of the b when semantically appropriate, just as Pilgram's book does. The rest of the list does show you've read a fair amount in the past month (just as others on this list, including me), but what does it do to specifically support your argument? While it is true that html5 brought back tags such as b and i, but it has also brought back table for presentation. I leave the reader (and the future) to judge the wisdom of that decision. The discussion is not about the table element's role attribute in (X)HTML5, the discussion was centered on the specific change to the meaning of the b tag. Even if the table tag implementation is questionable, that does not mean all of the new semantics for the b are questionable. Each feature stands on its own merits. I think we all realize the problems that these tags bring to the table (no pun intended). We can either continue to resolve the problems they present or we can resort back to the way things were. Again, the table tag was not the discussion. How would you markup text that should be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance...? You could choose to use a span tag. However, I would, following the W3C quote above, choose to use the b tag as HTML5 becomes better supported. As for me, I choose to never use b and i for anything PERIOD and to speak out against their use whenever I can. As for table in presentation, I am still undecided. While I would never use tables for the presentation of text, I often use simple tables (i.e., no nesting) for holding forms together. However, I am leaning toward not using tables for that either. I believe you have some b tags in your site. The world is changing and I don't think any organization can dictate what is the right/wrong way to do anything. But the good thing here is that we are left to our own judgement as to what we support and what we condemn. In my judgment, the b and i tags present more problems than they solve so I will continue to not use those tags and speak against them. Our own judgement AND the standards set out there by the community of professional web developers. The W3C is clearly moving to standardizing a new use for the b and i tags, and I will try to follow the standard, as other software developers (including those who develop screen readers) will do to try and improve the user experience. Again, I greatly respect you, Ted, I have learned much from your posts, and this discussion does not detract from that. However, I want to make sure the developers subscribing to the list will consider the use of the i and b tags as recommended by the W3C in (X)HTML5. Adam I've read this thread right through and I have to agree with Tedd. The new HTML5 spec might say it's fine to use b and i now for certain cases, but I still would use strong and em for the majority of those and other markup where else I could. Consider the example which started this thread. It was merely to make part of a name bold. Here is how I probably would have marked it up to give it a semantic meaning: span class=nameJohn span class=surnameSmith/span/span Easy to style however I wanted, easy to read the code and infer the meaning, and I believe there are things out there which
Re: [PHP] Bold links
At 10:10 AM -0700 5/10/11, Micky Hulse wrote: Looking at your site: http://sperling.com/ Viewing the source code on your homepage, I see b used 15 times in the body copy. You are absolutely right! I do know that the copy before that used em, but for some reason unrealized by me that copy was removed and replaced with the b one -- my bad!!! I will correct this within the week. Thanks for pointing that out -- if I preach something I should practice it. As for this being on topic or off, dealing with disability issues should always be on topic. Remember, it was a PHP question that started this. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
Hi Ash, I want to clarify a couple points. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.ukwrote: On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 13:46 -0400, Adam Richardson wrote: Hi Tedd, How's it going? I'm very pleased with the emphasis on accessibility you bring to the PHP list, but I do believe you're overstating a few points below. [Omitted for brevity] I've read this thread right through and I have to agree with Tedd. The new HTML5 spec might say it's fine to use b and i now for certain cases, but I still would use strong and em for the majority of those and other markup where else I could. I posted because Ted said First, never use B -- or I for that matter. My objection was to that specific statement. I don't think the spec says it is fine to use b and i for certain, but rather it points out appropriate uses of the tags given the (X)HTML5 spec. Consider the example which started this thread. It was merely to make part of a name bold. Here is how I probably would have marked it up to give it a semantic meaning: span class=nameJohn span class=surnameSmith/span/span We're not in disagreement here. I specifically pointed out that You could choose to use a span tag in my example. Such would be perfectly acceptable. The spec even says: The b http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-element element should be used as a last resort when no other element is more appropriate. In particular, headings should use the h1http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements to h6http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements elements, stress emphasis should use theemhttp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-em-element element, importance should be denoted with the stronghttp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-strong-element element, and text marked or highlighted should use the markhttp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-mark-element element. There's a similar caveat for the i tag, too. That said, if I was going to add the semantics you suggested, I'd probably use the hCard standard to facilitate the acquisition of this meta information: div id=hcard-John-Robert-Smith class=vcard span class=fn n span class=given-nameJohn/span span class=additional-nameRobert/span span class=family-nameSmith/span /span /div But it's here that we diverge I believe, as I believe that if I've exhausted the alternatives, as in the case of the examples included in the spec, one can appropriately use a b tag. And, I also see appropriate uses for the i tag in light of the spec. Easy to style however I wanted, easy to read the code and infer the meaning, and I believe there are things out there which digest content and make rudimentary attempts to decipher the meaning from simple classes such as these. In-fact, it was from simple class definitions like these that led to the creation of the new tags in HTML5 such as footer and nav. Absolutely right! Class names are very helpful. The spec even points out for the i that: Authors can use the classhttp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#classes attribute on the i http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element element to identify why the element is being used, so that if the style of a particular use (e.g. dream sequences as opposed to taxonomic terms) is to be changed at a later date, the author doesn't have to go through the entire document (or series of related documents) annotating each use. And, I would also point out that it was these same classes that you noted for footers and navs that lead to the change in the b and i tags. I feel it's only a matter of time before more tags are added to the mix (within limits of course, we don't want to remember a list of a million tags every time we fire up our editors to create something!) to make things even more semantic. For me, accessibility is only a hop away from semantics, so I try to avoid what I consider bad markup wherever I can. Although, as others have said, what is bad is largely, in part, down to user preference. I agree. That said, it sounds like we might differ in the perceived value of the b and i tags for semantics and accessibility. When I read the (X)HTML5 spec, especially for the i tag (see quoted text below), I see great hope for improving the user experience of those using text-to-speech software. I hear the speaker using different styles of speech to reflect em tags, strong tags, AND i tags in ways that make me excited for the future of accessibility. That is why I believe there are times for the appropriate use of b and i tags. The i http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element element represents http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose in a manner indicating a different quality of text, such as a taxonomic designation, a
RE: [PHP] Bold links
At 1:39 PM -0400 5/7/11, ad...@buskirkgraphics.com wrote:
?php global $current_user;
get_currentuserinfo();
echo 'Welcome nbsp;B' . $current_user-user_firstname . /B\n;
echo 'B' . $current_user-user_lastname . /B\n;
?
Richard L. Buskirk
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:
.whatever
{
font-weight: bold;
}
or
#whatever
{
font-weight: bold;
}
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
Hello tedd,
I'm standing up and applauding you.
Really, I'm... quite touched. There are too few people that care about
us, I mean, JAWS users. Of course, we, my wife and I, develop accessible
websites
ourselves but... there is lots of inaccessible stuff out there.
--
With best regards from Ukraine,
Andre
Skype: Francophile
My blog: http://oire.org/menelion (mostly in Russian)
Twitter: http://twitter.com/m_elensule
Facebook: http://facebook.com/menelion
Original message
From: tedd tedd.sperl...@gmail.com
To: ad...@buskirkgraphics.com
Date created: , 12:56:34 AM
Subject: [PHP] Bold links
At 1:39 PM -0400 5/7/11, ad...@buskirkgraphics.com wrote:
?php global $current_user;
get_currentuserinfo();
echo 'Welcome nbsp;B' . $current_user-user_firstname . /B\n;
echo 'B' . $current_user-user_lastname . /B\n;
?
Richard L. Buskirk
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:
.whatever
{
font-weight: bold;
}
or
#whatever
{
font-weight: bold;
}
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
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] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
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 emphasized or strongly put use the appropriate tags. Regards, -Josh Joshua Kehn | josh.k...@gmail.com http://joshuakehn.com
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Joshua Kehn josh.k...@gmail.com wrote: 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 emphasized or strongly put use the appropriate tags. Hrmm, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with b in this case. Span tag, or whatever (with a class, optionally, or however you prefer to mark things up), would work too... but, IMHO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with b. To each their own I guess. :) Cheers, Micky -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Bold links
?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;B' . $current_user-user_firstname . /B\n; echo 'B' . $current_user-user_lastname . /B\n; ? Richard L. Buskirk -Original Message- From: Michael Simiyu [mailto:simiyu.mich...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 1:42 PM To: php-general@lists.php.net Subject: [PHP] Bold links hey, some php 101 here guys :) i want to bold the first name and last name in the code below... ?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;' . $current_user-user_firstname . \n; echo '' . $current_user-user_lastname . \n; ? Thanks Michael -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
Hi, ?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;' . b.$current_user-user_firstname . /b.\n; echo '' b. $current_user-user_lastname . /b.\n; ? On 7 May 2011, at 18:42, Michael Simiyu wrote: hey, some php 101 here guys :) i want to bold the first name and last name in the code below... ?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;' . $current_user-user_firstname . \n; echo '' . $current_user-user_lastname . \n; ? Thanks Michael -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
Thanks alot... On May 7, 2011, at 8:39 PM, ad...@buskirkgraphics.com wrote: ?php global $current_user; get_currentuserinfo(); echo 'Welcome nbsp;B' . $current_user-user_firstname . / B\n; echo 'B' . $current_user-user_lastname . /B\n; ? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bold links
On 07 May 2011 at 18:42, Michael Simiyu simiyu.mich...@gmail.com wrote: hey, straw. some php 101 here guys :) i want to bold the first name and last name in the code below... It's not PHP 101, it's HTML 101. tim -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
