[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] 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] 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