Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Andy Budd wrote: Seems like using i or span class=italic are pretty much the same. No, here the span is worse. But it isn't a fair comparison since on one hand you're using the wrong tool the right way, but on the other hand you're using the right tool the wrong way. The class and id attribute, especially in a div or span, is a tool for conveying semantic content. Even something like div id=col1, while better, is far from ideal. At least col1 says it's a division of the content, while class=italics only says something about presentation. Mordechai * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Manuel González Noriega wrote: Well it's pretty tricky picking between two wrongs but i'd say wrong named classes are much less serious than wrongfully marked elements. Why is marking something up as italic wrong though? It may go against your belief of separating content from display, but it's a valid (x)html element isn't it? Seems like using i or span class=italic are pretty much the same. In fact you could argue that using li is better because it's a standard html element (rather than a user defined class) and will thus be understood by more systems. Are you saying that we are all guilty of laziness once or twice in a while and that we don't follow good practices all of the time? Boy, i'm glad i'm not the only one ;) Still, i don't think that's quite the same than writing a post about using an element in a way that's not the way it should be used. I'd still argue that the purpose of the i element is to make something italic, so that's exactly how it should be used (not saying that's the only way to make something italicw). Using it to make something bold however would be a shooting offence. Personally, i do it because i was told me girls dig semantic coding. You mean they don't? Some do. However some like it the old fashioned way. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
El vie, 07-05-2004 a las 17:37, Andy Budd escribió: Manuel González Noriega wrote: Well it's pretty tricky picking between two wrongs but i'd say wrong named classes are much less serious than wrongfully marked elements. Why is marking something up as italic wrong though? For one thing, it fixes the element to a medium (visual). If you 'span'n'style' it, you get back the freedom to export the meaning to different mediums. It's not wrong like it's a crime or unethical or something. It's just that every example i've seen of 'a fair use of i' could/should be reformulated. In every example (foreign language, scientific names, etc..) when someone tells me they want to mark something up as italic, i think 'no, you want to mark it up as belonging to a certain class *and then* saying that certain class should appear as italic. I'm aware is a fairly obscure technical-philosophical issue and that one man's 'true way' could be seen as 'markupbation' by others :-) It may go against your belief of separating content from display, but it's a valid (x)html element isn't it? Of course! If it wouldn't validate that would be quite the end of the discussion, wouldn't it? Still, a validator won't tell you if you're using the right tag for the job. That's a job for collective brainstormings like this. Seems like using i or span class=italic are pretty much the same. In fact you could argue that using li is better because it's a standard html element (rather than a user defined class) and will thus be understood by more systems. The incorrect naming of the span class is what it's making it pretty much the same. If the name of the class would describe the function rather than the visual presentation, then there would be a clear difference. I'd still argue that the purpose of the i element is to make something italic, so that's exactly how it should be used (not saying that's the only way to make something italicw). Using it to make something bold however would be a shooting offence. The main issue is choosing between considering i - a first-class citizen of the (x)HTML world - a piece of junk that smells bad and doesn't really has the right to be in a modern markup job, even though it hasn't been yet erased from the specs. (just kidding, i, i just think your time has passed. No offense) Personally, i do it because i was told me girls dig semantic coding. You mean they don't? Some do. However some like it the old fashioned way. Girls who mix content and presentation are a sure mess to get undressed. BTW, sometimes i feel way beyond my written english skills, excuse me if my sentences sound aadvark sometimes. -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Manuel Gonzlez Noriega wrote: Hi, i want to comment on Matthew Thomas' 'When semantic markup goes bad' http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2004/05/02/b-and-i Basically, i think his main thesis is plain wrong cite These arent exhaustive lists, but as you can see, some reasons for using bold and italics dont have their own semantic HTML elements. This is why b and i exist/cite No, that's not why b and i exist. That's why span exists. The way i see it, if you need an new html element that is not available, you use 'span+appropiate identifier' If you need a vector element, you compensate for the lack of it with span class=vectorR2/span and then style it to bold. If you want to quote something on a foreign language and want it to appear in italics, you don't (as MPT proposes) mark it up as imi mama me mima/i, you mark it up with span class=foreign lang=esmi mama me mima/span and then style it to your liking If you have some time to read his post and comment on it, i'd really appreciate it :-) I think Matthew is pointing out that many people are using (or suggesting) strong where b (or a styled span) would be better. He doesn't say that you must use b but explains why this element is in the specs. Strictly spoken, b is purely presentational and should not replace an apropriate semantic tag (e.g. a headline), OTOH span class=boldfoo/span is a lot of code compared to bbar/b. Both elements are semantically neutral. Tonico -- Tonico Strasser ?:-) http://Tonico.FreeZope.org Contact_Tonico at Yahoo dot de Check out http://www.WebProducer.at * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Manuel: I'm glad you've raised this as I was of a very similar mind when I read the article. The examples you have provided, IMO, are generally a better and safer choice. After all, strike and u got the chop in HTML 4.0 (source: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/changes.html#h-A.3.1.2) so who's to say the same won't (or shouldn't) happen to b and i It feels like just a matter of time... Also, your alternate language example is bang on. That is one of the primary uses of lang, or xml:lang, or whatever. While the intentions of the article are good, the recommendations come off as a little backwards to me. Andrew Krespanis. _ Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-aupage=hotmail/es2 * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
El jue, 06-05-2004 a las 15:58, Tonico Strasser escribió: I think Matthew is pointing out that many people are using (or suggesting) strong where b (or a styled span) would be better. He doesn't say that you must use b but explains why this element is in the specs. I think he's on with some kind of fallacy where if you agree that if you agree that 1) strong and em generally supercede b and i 2) strong and em are used incorrectly sometimes (we're all ok with the argument to this point, methinks, but it's so obvious it's pretty useless, everything is used incorrectly sometimes) then you must agree that 3) wherever strong and em are used incorrectly, b and i are to be used. It's proposition 3) i have issues with. But it could be me having a bad hair day ;) OTOH span class=boldfoo/span is a lot of code compared to bbar/b. That's not fair, you are comparing bar to foo and everybody prefers a bar over almost anything :D -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
-Original Message-
From: Andy Budd
[snip]
Whereas I can see a good reason to use semantic HTML, is there really
much point in worrying if your ID's/classes have semantic meaning.
Becasue they are user defined, there probably is never going to be a
time when that information will be used by another machine.
I haven't read the article in question yet, but this just caught my eye...
A fair point, but in my mind it makes sense to still keep IDs/classes semantic,
mainly for your own sake as a developer, and to make things easier to maintain
in future.
An example: when I first started in this job, I went through all the code
left by my predecessor. She had obviously dabbled with CSS, but obviously not
understood the idea of separation of content and presentation at all, leading to
wonderful things like
a href=blah.html class=redlinkblah/a
with
.redlink { color: red; }
This was all fine and dandy...until the corporate identity guidelines changed and
all links needed to be make green instead of red. As a quick fix, I did
.redlink { color: green; }
Great...so now I had a class redlink making things green. Intuitive...
I ended up simplifying the entire CSS anyway, removing the need for any such classes
in most cases, but if I hadn't, I would have had to go through the entire site and
find/replace redlink with greenlink or something as well...
Same with things like floatLeft...what if you later decide that you don't want
to float it at all? Heck, even col1 does imply that it's one of many columns...what
if
you later redo the whole CSS and the whole block is on its own, i.e. not a column
anymore?
As always, every web developer needs to get a clear idea of how far down the
eradication
of presentational markup and IDs/classnames they want to go. Often I do make hard and
fast
calls about certain class names, for instance, when I know that a page is only going
to be
needed for a few months or something. For longer term pages and site sections, I try a
bit
harder to keep the content as presentation-agnostic as possible, classnames and all...
My GBP0.02 anyway,
Patrick
p.s.: and now I'll go off and read the article, to see if I'm now wildly off topic
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
RE: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
I'm sure lot's of people probably use em when they aren't really emphasising something, but simply wanting to make something italic. Absolutely! In natural science (specifically speaking about species names here) Italics are the way to present the scientific name (genus species pair or senior synonym like iThorunna australis/i or even just the species or shorthand variations), not emphasis. I think there is a good argument for using i here as it isn't ambiguous in any way that I want italics. In this case em is just semantically wrong and i simply should not be deprecated. There may be an argument for an xml structure here though: senior_synonym genusThorunna/genus speciesaustralis/species /senior_synonym But in most cases we certainly don't need this as we are marking up text for the sake of displaying text, not extraction for any other reason by any other agent. The extra bytes are a total waste of bandwidth and when you get to heavily used repositories of text-based factsheets like http://amonline.net.au/fishes/fishfacts/specfam.htm or http://seaslugforum.net/species.htm it can make quite a difference in speed and money. A random example http://seaslugforum.net/thoraust.htm shows how many times species names can appear in a fact sheet (this is one of the shorter ones and yes we are currently rebuilding this overgrown and complex data-driven site so no comments please) and it also shows the scientific requirement for italics in citations, but that's another argument entirely. P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
El jue, 06-05-2004 a las 17:30, Andy Budd escribió: I think the article seems reasonable. I do not but that's a matter of opinion of course :) Some people would argue that what you should do is wrap the element in a span, create a class and then style the class in the stylesheets. This is reasonable if the class has some meaning (e.g. author). However most people would just create a class called italic. By doing this, you are no longer really separating presentation from structure, so why not use i? Well it's pretty tricky picking between two wrongs but i'd say wrong named classes are much less serious than wrongfully marked elements. I think it's very good practice to code semantically. However I often find myself creating a class solely to position an element (float it left lest say). I usually try to give the element some semantic meaning (like col1) however it's always tempting to simply go for the easy option of floatLeft. Are you saying that we are all guilty of laziness once or twice in a while and that we don't follow good practices all of the time? Boy, i'm glad i'm not the only one ;) Still, i don't think that's quite the same than writing a post about using an element in a way that's not the way it should be used. Whereas I can see a good reason to use semantic HTML, is there really much point in worrying if your ID's/classes have semantic meaning. Becasue they are user defined, there probably is never going to be a time when that information will be used by another machine. Personally, i do it because i was told me girls dig semantic coding. You mean they don't? Seriously, the issue of relevant class/ID naming is interesting and important but Matthew proposes a whole different (and IMHO wrong) thing -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
El jue, 06-05-2004 a las 18:08, Peter Firminger escribió: I'm sure lot's of people probably use em when they aren't really emphasising something, but simply wanting to make something italic. Absolutely! In natural science (specifically speaking about species names here) Italics are the way to present the scientific name (genus species pair or senior synonym like iThorunna australis/i or even just the species or shorthand variations), not emphasis. I think there is a good argument for using i here as it isn't ambiguous in any way that I want italics. In this case em is just semantically wrong and i simply should not be deprecated. I'm sure there are times when i is the right element to use, but your example is not one :) If the markup means 'look, this is a genus species pair', please make it tell so: 1) seniorsynonymThorunna Australis/seniorsynonym 2) span class=seniorsynonimThorunna Australis/seniorsynonym 3) iThorunna Australis/i 1) is not available to current browsers without involving extra technology 2) is nice, clean and optimal in the current day and time. 3) is pretty useless But in most cases we certainly don't need this as we are marking up text for the sake of displaying text, not extraction for any other reason by any other agent. The extra bytes are a total waste of bandwidth and when you get to heavily used repositories of text-based factsheets like http://amonline.net.au/fishes/fishfacts/specfam.htm or http://seaslugforum.net/species.htm it can make quite a difference in speed and money. First, i don't think we should discuss specific cases. If you need to save bandwith by using i instead of span.class, it's entirely up you of course. We're talking general principles/best practices I don't think (given that we are using clean, well marked code) that there's a clear and present global need for saving bandwith by switching from span.class - Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] When the mix of visual appearance and meaning goes really bad
Absolutely! In natural science (specifically speaking about species names here) Italics are the way to present the scientific name (genus species pair or senior synonym like iThorunna australis/i or even just the species or shorthand variations), not emphasis. I think there is a good argument for using i here as it isn't ambiguous in any way that I want italics. In this case em is just semantically wrong and i simply should not be deprecated. Hmm. This is a difficult one. I think it could be argued that this is emphasis. In this case you are emphasising the species by displaying it in italics. i certainly isn't the way to go though with either argument - language is supposed to be independent of presentation, be it visual or aural or whatever. What if the biologists that be decided to change the way this was normally presented? What if it was deemed to be better to be in bold rather than italics? Your HTML would then be semantically incorrect. Hypothetical, but logical. I think it's right to completely separate meaning and presentation and I think it's right to deprecate i. Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
