[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  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, it's a little clunky to me though.  Any
thoughts on this would be welcome.
 
Cheers,
 
Robby Jennings
UID Developer
  http://www.seek.com.au/ 

SEEK Limited
Level 2, 3 Wellington St.
St Kilda, Victoria, 3182

PH : +61 3 8417 4105 
FAX : +61 3 9510 7244
URL : www.seek.com.au http://www.seek.com.au/ 

Please consider the environment
before printing emails. 
 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


seek_u_find.gif
Description: seek_u_find.gif


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 look at the relevant W3C
guidelines.

Regards,
Ca Phun


Robby Jennings wrote:

  
  
  I'm
currentlycollating a coding standards document, and havearrived at
thestrong v's b puzzle.I've been preaching the use of
strong tags as it provides contextual mark-up of content.The
b provides inlinepresentational mark-up which I'm trying to
phase out.
  
  I've
found this list ofdepreciated
tags http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htmwhich
lists strong and em as depreciated. I thought the
b tag wouldbe depreciated. 
  
  So which is
correct? What should I be using?I know I can just use span
tags, and apply css, it's a little clunky to me though. Any thoughts
on this would be welcome.
  
  Cheers,
  
  Robby Jennings
  UID
Developer
  
  
  SEEK Limited
Level 2, 3 Wellington St.
St Kilda, Victoria, 3182
  
PH : +61 3 8417 4105
  FAX : +61 3 9510 7244
URL : www.seek.com.au
  
Please consider the environment
before printing emails. 
  
  
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

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, doesn't mention doctypes... here's a better 
reference [1] - straight from the source, and no mention of deprecation 
for *any* of those four elements. Of course, that's HTML4.0. If you're 
planning to code to a flavour of XHTML, things change. There, b and 
i are definitely deprecated, but I think your source is wrong in 
saying that strong and em are also...


b and i are presentational, and so are considered to have no place 
in html markup. Personally, I use inline strong and em elements 
because they can be styled conventionally - or not, as a design 
requires - via css but still maintain a basic level of control over 
semantic emphasis within the text.


As a quick aside to the main issue, but staying with the theme of 
correctness, elements which are recommended not to be used are 
deprecated. Depreciation is what happens to your shiny new 
car/PC/camera/iPod the moment you take it out of its box. Kind of 
ironic that html-reference.com have this error embedded so deep it's in 
the filename...


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

N
___
omnivision. websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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, it's a little clunky to me though.  Any 
thoughts on this would be welcome.
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.


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 
languages, it's not the case for all.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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 strong and em.

When in doubt, ask the official docs:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html#edef-B
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-STRONG

note also the html5 proposals:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-b

[1] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/wannabe/

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.com





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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 
languages, it's not the case for all.


And considering that bold text in some writing scripts would be ugly or 
worse illegible on a computer screen ...  likewise italic or oblique 
doesn't make much sense for some other scripts either.



And strong and em can be styled appropriately for each language 
being used.


Andrew
--
Andrew Cunningham

andrewc+AEA-vicnet.net.au

Ph. 3-8664-7430
Fax: 3-9639-2175

http://www.openroad.net.au/
http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/
http://www.vicnet.net.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***begin:vcard
fn:Andrew Cunningham
n:Cunningham;Andrew
org:State Library of Victoria;Vicnet
adr:;;328 Swanston Street;Melbourne;VIC;3000;Australia
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Research and Development Coordinator
tel;work:+61-3-8664-7430
tel;fax:+61-3-9639-2175
tel;cell:0421-450-816
note;quoted-printable:Current projects:=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	Open Road=E2=80=94http://www.openroad.net.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	MyLanguage=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.gov.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	WoVG Multilingual portal research project=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.v=
	ic.gov.au/wovgdemo/
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.vicnet.net.au/~andrewc/
version:2.1
end:vcard




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 chuckle...

depreciate: to reduce the purchasing value of (money)

Them tags are getting cheaper every day...

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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 
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 chuckle...

depreciate: to reduce the purchasing value of (money)

Them tags are getting cheaper every day...

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

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 down. You might want to offer to help with a rewrite
2. Beat them in the SERPs so fewer people find them ;)

warmly,
Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
Brisbane, Australia


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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


  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 
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 chuckle...

depreciate: to reduce the purchasing value of (money)

Them tags are getting cheaper every day...

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  
  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ***


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 
11:56 AM


-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 24601 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


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,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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 spelling didn't look right. That what happens when you rely 
too much on spell checkers.

And no,  neither b nor i are deprecated; or strong and em

Sure they are; the W3C has it wrong. ;)

Seriously though, they are in XHTML, which is what I was thinking. The 
difference occurred to me only after I replied. Oh well.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***