Hi Robby,
As far as I'm aware strong is here to stay. HTML and XHTML both
support it. Also the page you're referring to doesn't look credible as
it advocates using HTML 4.0 as a rule of thumb. Try this:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp
Or if you want the definitive answer take a
Robby Jennings wrote:
I've found this list of depreciated tags
http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm which lists strong and
em as depreciated. I thought the b tag would be depreciated.
Don't like the look of that page much. Must be old. Very vague, infers
that HTML4.0 is new,
Robby Jennings wrote:
I've found this list of depreciated tags
http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm which lists strong and
em as depreciated. I thought the b tag would be depreciated.
So which is correct? What should I be using? I know I can just use
span tags, and apply css,
On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Mordechai Peller wrote:
The site is wrong, plain and simple. b and i ARE depreciated,
while strong, em, and blockquote are certainly NOT. Also, the
size and type attributes are also not depreciated.
deprecated... [1]
And no, neither b nor i are deprecated; or
Mordechai Peller wrote:
It should be noted that strong and em are not replacements for b
and i as the former are semantic and not presentational, while the
latter are presentational and not semantic. For example, while the
default presentational representation of strong is bold for many
Robby Jennings wrote:
I've found this list of depreciated tags
http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm which lists
strong and
em as depreciated. I thought the b tag would be depreciated.
The fact that they confused (based on the filename) depreciate with *deprecate*
made me
Nice one Patrick, that made me laugh too... lol
But on a serious note what could we do about resources like these that
publicize incorrect information and advocate bad practice?
Patrick Lauke wrote:
Robby Jennings wrote:
I've found this list of depreciated tags
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:55:57 +0800, Ca Phun Ung wrote:
But on a serious note what could we do about resources like these
that publicize incorrect information and advocate bad practice?
I can only think of 2 options:
1. send a message to the site oner asking them to correct them or take
them
Let them keep putting them up. As long as we know what's right we can do a good
job and it may keep the competition down! LOL
- Original Message -
From: Ca Phun Ung
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i
Open Vision wrote:
Let them keep putting them up. As long as we know what's right we can do
a good job and it may keep the competition down! LOL
That's a pretty closed vision! To be honest, the best thing about web
standards is that they're not standard. It makes me employable.
Regards,
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Mordechai Peller wrote:
The site is wrong, plain and simple. b and i ARE depreciated,
while strong, em, and blockquote are certainly NOT. Also, the
size and type attributes are also not depreciated.
deprecated... [1]
I knew the
11 matches
Mail list logo