Dear WSG Team,
It's been my pleasure to be with you all these days.
Now that I am not doing CMS any more, I wish to be
removed from the list. I could not find any link on
the site to unsubscribe. So, I request the moderator
to remove me from the list.
Thanks in advance. Hope you all enjoy
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:09:59 -0700, Ben Curtis wrote:
Both of your examples make the same amount of sense, semantically.
Bold text does not mean anything different than non-bold text, and
therefore boldness has no semantic meaning.
In theory, I agree with you.
But in practice - the B tag has
Without trying to drag this on Ben, I still fail to see the purpose of using
the B tag over the SPAN tag and don't genuinely believe I'm declaring my own
preference as a standard. If backward compatibility is the only argument
then it only goes slightly further back than SPAN so the weight of that
Without trying to drag this on Ben...
Indeed. I suspect this discussion is one of those that a lot of
people would be in agreement if they were in the same room, but in
email it seems like there may be more disagreement than intended.
Tends to produce many emails, especially from folks
On 18 Aug 2005, at 8:50 PM, Lea de Groot wrote:
I think the developer who approaches this later will be confused.
Documenting your work eliminates this, nothing too fancy required...
just some comments on how and why things are done a particular way.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
You are correct, it hasn't been 'officially' deprecated but as visual tags
and not logical ones; CSS offers a better long term solution.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/elements.html seems to agree.
Regarding books, if you carry extra [per book] information in the context of
the
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Ben Curtis wrote:
That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not aware of
any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can anyone cite
such a declaration?
They are included in XHTML 1.1 (Presentation Module)
On Aug 17, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Julie Romanowski wrote:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Ben Curtis wrote:
That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not
aware of any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can
anyone cite such a declaration?
...
Please look at the date of
I see your point about backward compatibility but B and I aren't
technically, semantically empty. (If that makes sense).
span style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/span
makes sense...
b style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/b
does not.
B and I being visual tags should be removed from the
On Aug 17, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Edward Clarke wrote:
I see your point about backward compatibility but B and I aren't
technically, semantically empty. (If that makes sense).
span style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/span
makes sense...
b style=font-weight: normal;Harry Potter/b
does not.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have a page with text that i
want highlighted. i
currently have the text in atext/a and styled
with css. what is
the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as
strong is not
what i want, because i don't want someone to get
yelled at by their
Sam Brown wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have a page with text that i
want highlighted. i
currently have the text in atext/a and styled
with css. what is
the best practice, semantically, to achieve this, as
strong is not
what i want, because i don't want someone to get
yelled at by
Semantic = meaning.
What is the meaning of highlighting the text?
If it's a design decision the use SPAN
If it's a meaning decision use STRONG or EM
Think of EM as a rise in pitch when reading something out to someone.
Think of STRONG as slow and controlled while pointing your finger kinda
Hi Dwain
I try to avoid using spans as much as possible. It's not that they are bad,
but that they could be avoided in many instances.
It takes me back to something that an editor once taught me. She said that I
should think twice before using the word that. It can usually be removed
and the
It's a valid point actually.
DIVitis and SPANitis are rife and elements can normally be styled using
inherent selectors. The fact you have the text wrapped in A means you can
approach the CSS from with #container a
-Original Message-
Think twice before using a span
--- Drake, Ted C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I try to avoid using spans as much as possible. It's
not that they are bad,
but that they could be avoided in many instances.
I agree with your comments here, Ted, I just didn't
have any context to provide a more meaningful
explanation. Personally,
Sam Brown wrote:
I'm not sure I would put these book titles
in a tags unless they are actually anchoring
something.
they are not anchoring anything. strong isn't what i want and b is
deprecated (?), so what is the practice to highlight a word or words?
i knew that i would some how
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Brown wrote:
I'm not sure I would put these book titles
in a tags unless they are actually anchoring
something.
they are not anchoring anything. strong isn't what i want and
b is deprecated (?), so what is the practice to
If the books are mentioned in a sentence, such as In the
dead sea scrolls, someone said foo, then I agree completely with using
cite.
pIn citethe dead sea scrolls/cite someone said
qfoo/q/p or whatever. One problem with
many examples (including mine) of cite is that they always are paired
with a
b is not deprecated, it just has no semantic value and in the fight
to get people to markup their content semantically instead of
visually, b and i became clear targets. Unfortunately, this means
that many people think they should use strong and em when they
really should use b and i. It's
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:12:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in a monologue i am listing book titles and i have them styled bold
(css) in an a tag. (i.e., nag hammadi library, the holy qur'an,
the dead sea scrolls, etc.)
Have you seen the cite tag?
It sounds like it might be of use to you -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they are not anchoring anything. strong isn't what i want
and b is deprecated (?), so what is the practice to
highlight a word or words?
Using boldface or italics is the usual method. These are
semantically represented by the strong and em markup.
Other options
On Aug 16, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Julie Romanowski wrote:
Here is a W3C Working Draft that addresses b and i:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/
The em and strong elements were designed to indicate structural
emphasis that may be rendered in a variety of ways (font style
changes,
speech
G'day
That's a very curious thing for the W3C to publish. I am not aware of
any HTML standard in which b and i are deprecated. Can anyone cite
such a declaration?
Cant find one myself. The closest is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15./2 (which talks
about some font
Ben Curtis wrote:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Brown wrote:
From your description, it sounds like you want the b or span tag.
You want book titles to be bold; there is no clear tag for a book title
(although there was a thread earlier in the year advocating
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Curtis wrote:
b class=bookTitleInnocents Abroad/b
Then style the class as you see fit.
...i think that this is the solution. although i
said a list of book titles i was not meaning li list.
If it is indeed a list, why not mark it up as a list?
You
Lea de Groot wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:12:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in a monologue i am listing book titles and i have them styled bold
(css) in an a tag. (i.e., nag hammadi library, the holy qur'an,
the dead sea scrolls, etc.)
Have you seen the cite tag?
It sounds like it
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:56:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks to all who responded. i want to do it with standards compliance.
Glad to help!
An aside: Bear in mind that you can do the most awful table-based
design and be 'standards-compliant'.
Once you've learnt the rules and know how
28 matches
Mail list logo
