[WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Robby Jennings
I'm currently collating a coding standards document, and have arrived at the strong v's b puzzle. I've been preaching the use of strong tags as it provides contextual mark-up of content. The b provides inline presentational mark-up which I'm trying to phase out. I've found this list of

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Ca Phun Ung
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

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Nick Gleitzman
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,

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Mordechai Peller
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,

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Philippe Wittenbergh
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

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Andrew Cunningham
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

RE: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Patrick Lauke
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

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Ca Phun Ung
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

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Lea de Groot
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

RE: [WSG] handling accessible form

2007-04-23 Thread michael.brockington
On the other hand, relying on the form data to indicate which fields to validate may be dangerous - a malicious user may rename the field before submission, potentially bypassing your security. Regards, Mike *** List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Open Vision
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

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Barney Carroll
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,

Re: [WSG] handling accessible form

2007-04-23 Thread Blake Haswell
On 4/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, relying on the form data to indicate which fields to validate may be dangerous - a malicious user may rename the field before submission, potentially bypassing your security. Well obviously you'd validate again on the

Re: [WSG] strong v's b , em v's i

2007-04-23 Thread Mordechai Peller
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

[WSG] handling accessible form

2007-04-23 Thread Dennis Lapcewich
Return Receipt Your [WSG] handling accessible form document:

[WSG] dropdown menus

2007-04-23 Thread Shane Helm
I have a few clients who want dropdown menus used in the main navigation of their websites because 'so-and-so' has it on their site. I attempt to explain the problems they have over forms, Flash, Google maps, etc. and they are inconsistent in browsers. I thought I would bring this before

Re: [WSG] dropdown menus

2007-04-23 Thread Blake Haswell
On 4/24/07, Shane Helm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I would bring this before the group to hear your opinions on using dropdown menus. How do you feel about them? What is the best method for usability? I think they have their place, and with modern browsers it's not such a problem in

[WSG] what is semantic?

2007-04-23 Thread Naveen_Bhaskar
Hi all. I would really appreciate if any tell me what is the term called semantic? Thanks a ton Navii *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:

RE: [WSG] what is semantic?

2007-04-23 Thread Webb, KerryA
Naveen asked: Hi all. I would really appreciate if any tell me what is the term called semantic? It means relating to meaning. To give an example, some tags in HTML relate to presentation, like i or b but they don't really tell you anything about the meaning of the text that they refer to.

Re: [WSG] what is semantic?

2007-04-23 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
I would really appreciate if any tell me what is the term called semantic? Maybe this article by Mel Pedley will help shed some light on semantics for you, Navii. http://accessites.org/site/2007/04/semantics-why-bother/ Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/

[WSG] Disappearing positioned footer in IE7 - works in IE6

2007-04-23 Thread Cole Kuryakin
Hello All - I was having an absolutely-positioned footer problem in IE6 which was fixed with the following: #bottom_nav {/*Compliant Browsers*/ position: absolute; bottom: -75px; right: 25px; text-align: right;