I'm bored...
-
Nobody's posting anything. So I decided to ask a question. When you bold text or italicize it...which set of tags do you use? 1)
<b></b> and <i></i>
or 2)
<strong></strong> and <em></em>
I use the second 'cause Microsoft says to. :-D David Stone dstone@newcenturytitle.com
MEEKNESS, n. Uncommon patience in planning a revenge that is worth while. The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose BierceThe reason <strong> and <em> are recommended over <b> and <i> is because they to not mislead the author into believing the specified text will be in bold or italics. The web designer could use CSS to make <b> text all lower-case and overlined in purple :).
-
Nobody's posting anything. So I decided to ask a question. When you bold text or italicize it...which set of tags do you use? 1)
<b></b> and <i></i>
or 2)
<strong></strong> and <em></em>
I use the second 'cause Microsoft says to. :-D David Stone dstone@newcenturytitle.com
MEEKNESS, n. Uncommon patience in planning a revenge that is worth while. The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce -
<rant> I despise MS bashing (or bashing of any company or individual for that matter). In this case the bashing is doubly offensive because it's unwarranted to the topic. </rant> STRONG and EM are standard tags specified by the W3C. See here. As far as I know MS had nothing to do with the adoption of these tags, and the recommendation to use them instead of <b> and <i> is made by the W3C, not by MS, no matter if the MSDN text gives you the impression it comes from MS or not. Way too many people in this thread think this is a MS thing, which indicates they really don't understand the standard that they are supposedly defending against MS's "evil influence". The bashers are, once again, too quick on the draw. William E. Kempf
William E. Kempf wrote: STRONG and EM are standard tags specified by the W3C. See here. As far as I know MS had nothing to do with the adoption of these tags, and the recommendation to use them instead of and is made by the W3C, not by MS I totally agree with this. In a previous life I was involved in the design and implemention of a multimedia authoring suite(*) that supported HTML and (draft spec)XML and (draft spec)CSS, as a subset of what the whole tool could do. STRONG and EM were the W3C recommendations. When I write HTML I tend to use B and I because they are more convenient. Microsoft did recommend a whole slew of tags, as did Netscape, but as far as I can remember these were not part of that, from either Microsoft or Netscape. (*)The authoring suite never made it market - when Netscape gave their source away the competitive advantage was lost (cost of entry to competitors was significantly lowered), and the project died. Cheers Stephen Kellett -- Memory Validator. Faster Leak Detection, Better Analysis. http://www.softwareverify.com http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
-
William E. Kempf wrote: STRONG and EM are standard tags specified by the W3C. See here. As far as I know MS had nothing to do with the adoption of these tags, and the recommendation to use them instead of and is made by the W3C, not by MS I totally agree with this. In a previous life I was involved in the design and implemention of a multimedia authoring suite(*) that supported HTML and (draft spec)XML and (draft spec)CSS, as a subset of what the whole tool could do. STRONG and EM were the W3C recommendations. When I write HTML I tend to use B and I because they are more convenient. Microsoft did recommend a whole slew of tags, as did Netscape, but as far as I can remember these were not part of that, from either Microsoft or Netscape. (*)The authoring suite never made it market - when Netscape gave their source away the competitive advantage was lost (cost of entry to competitors was significantly lowered), and the project died. Cheers Stephen Kellett -- Memory Validator. Faster Leak Detection, Better Analysis. http://www.softwareverify.com http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
Nuts, it wasn't all meant to come out bold! Stephen Kellett -- Memory Validator. Faster Leak Detection, Better Analysis. http://www.softwareverify.com http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
-
Because Microsoft wants to own the standard. They also want to own the standard we all know as "day" and "night". However, significant evidence that "day" and "night" have both been happening for a considerable amount of time before Microsoft became incorporated is placing a speed bump in their plans. Don't be fool, though. The [Micorosft] lawyers think they might have found a loophole. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio.
I think Mr Morden can help with this. Stephen Kellett -- Memory Validator. Faster Leak Detection, Better Analysis. http://www.softwareverify.com http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
-
Nobody's posting anything. So I decided to ask a question. When you bold text or italicize it...which set of tags do you use? 1)
<b></b> and <i></i>
or 2)
<strong></strong> and <em></em>
I use the second 'cause Microsoft says to. :-D David Stone dstone@newcenturytitle.com
MEEKNESS, n. Uncommon patience in planning a revenge that is worth while. The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose BierceI use the first becuase they each take up 1 character (+brackets) instead of 5/2 chars respectively. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
I use the first becuase they each take up 1 character (+brackets) instead of 5/2 chars respectively. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: use the first becuase they each take up 1 character (+brackets) instead of 5/2 chars respectively. First good reason I heard :-) Nish
Regards, Nish Native CPian. Born and brought up on CP. With the CP blood in him.
-
Nuts, it wasn't all meant to come out bold! Stephen Kellett -- Memory Validator. Faster Leak Detection, Better Analysis. http://www.softwareverify.com http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
Thats what the 'Preview' button is for ;P "When I'm not awake i'm usually sleeping" - Jonny Newman + C2H5OH
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 and now..... nonny@nonny.com I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
I'm interested - I write HTML every day, and I did not know the second set. ( It's hardly my forte, I tend to get mostly the COM/C++ stuff at work as that is what I am good at, but I do write some asp as well ) Where and why do Microsoft say the second set is preferred ? Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002
Christian Graus wrote: Where and why do Microsoft say the second set is preferred ? The other guy is misinformed. It is not a Microsoft thing, but rather a W3C and common sense thing (though I still have to force myself to use STRONG and EM.) Basically B and I have no real meaning. They are visual styles. Hower STRONG and EM have meaning. EM is short for emphasise and is meant to say that the word inbetween the EM tags is, well, emphasised. Like "Christian is amazing." Emphasis being on "amazing." STRONG is meant to show that a word is important. Like a definition or key statement. It is strongly important in the paragraph or document. The reason to use STRONG and EM as opposed to B and I is that your HTML documents should structured to mean something, not just to look good. That way in the future computers can analyse your documents and retrieve the key statements, meanings etc. If you use B or I it means nothing more than "style these words differently". there is a shite load of other tags along these lines. Like ABBR (abbreviation), QUOTE etc. They all tag words as meaning something, as opposed to just looking cool. It is a big push by the W3C to bring some meaning to the structure of HTML documents. Same as in rather using H1, H2, H3 etc. as opposed to SPANs with styling applied. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
-
I use the first becuase they each take up 1 character (+brackets) instead of 5/2 chars respectively. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: I use the first becuase they each take up 1 character (+brackets) instead of 5/2 chars respectively That is a terrible reason. Use STRONG and EM. Gives meaning to your documents. Remember when we used to shorten years to two digits? Because it saved space... We all know what happened then. ;P regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
-
Chris Maunder wrote: I use the first becuase they each take up 1 character (+brackets) instead of 5/2 chars respectively That is a terrible reason. Use STRONG and EM. Gives meaning to your documents. Remember when we used to shorten years to two digits? Because it saved space... We all know what happened then. ;P regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
OK - how about this then: When I want text to be "strong" or emphasised I'm big enough and ugly enough to decided what that means, so instead of putting or and hoping I get bold and italic, I put and knowing that I'll get bold or italic. The day I need a browser to make such a decision for me is the day I hang up my keyboard. Besides - I will bet you another case of beer that no major browser will, in the next 5 years, make or anything other than bold and italic. HOWEVER: I do understand fully the need to use and _for accessibility. HTML should define content, not style (that's what CSS are for) and so _and in that sense are definitely preferable. However, if someone with accessibility issues has trouble between and then they are going to be completely stumped with the rest of what I do. BUT (just let me double-backflip) if I was that much of a purest I'd be using XHTML and defining everything using CSS. However, I'm a realist and go for quicker downloads rather than "perfect" HTML. We are blessed with very, very good browsers these days. I choose to take advantage of them to save me time and pain. cheers, Chris Maunder__
-
OK - how about this then: When I want text to be "strong" or emphasised I'm big enough and ugly enough to decided what that means, so instead of putting or and hoping I get bold and italic, I put and knowing that I'll get bold or italic. The day I need a browser to make such a decision for me is the day I hang up my keyboard. Besides - I will bet you another case of beer that no major browser will, in the next 5 years, make or anything other than bold and italic. HOWEVER: I do understand fully the need to use and _for accessibility. HTML should define content, not style (that's what CSS are for) and so _and in that sense are definitely preferable. However, if someone with accessibility issues has trouble between and then they are going to be completely stumped with the rest of what I do. BUT (just let me double-backflip) if I was that much of a purest I'd be using XHTML and defining everything using CSS. However, I'm a realist and go for quicker downloads rather than "perfect" HTML. We are blessed with very, very good browsers these days. I choose to take advantage of them to save me time and pain. cheers, Chris Maunder__
Chris Maunder wrote: OK - how about this then: down boy, down ;) I fully understand CPs position and also the level of (X)HTML compliance it should be aiming for. It is doing a great job, far better than even some pure web-dev code sites. However when, or rather if I am so lucky to, get my teeth into CPs HTML I can show you some neat "tricks" which involve strict conformance and very lean and clean code. You know I am more a jack of all trades, master of none, but when it comes to (X)HTML and CSS I can without any humility flex my muscles and run with the big boys :-D The offer definitley stands Chris :) p.s. You see our disgraced former cricket captain Hansie Cronje died? Sad day indeed. He had a rough ending, but he was a great cricketer and we were very greateful for him (remember that time he hit 5 Sixes off Shaney in one over? hehe) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
-
Chris Maunder wrote: OK - how about this then: down boy, down ;) I fully understand CPs position and also the level of (X)HTML compliance it should be aiming for. It is doing a great job, far better than even some pure web-dev code sites. However when, or rather if I am so lucky to, get my teeth into CPs HTML I can show you some neat "tricks" which involve strict conformance and very lean and clean code. You know I am more a jack of all trades, master of none, but when it comes to (X)HTML and CSS I can without any humility flex my muscles and run with the big boys :-D The offer definitley stands Chris :) p.s. You see our disgraced former cricket captain Hansie Cronje died? Sad day indeed. He had a rough ending, but he was a great cricketer and we were very greateful for him (remember that time he hit 5 Sixes off Shaney in one over? hehe) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Tim Smith wrote: Over here in the third world of humor (a.k.a. BBC America), peterchen wrote: We should petition microsoft to a "target=_Paul" attribute.
Paul Watson wrote: You see our disgraced former cricket captain Hansie Cronje died :( Regardless of his misdemeanors he was still an excellent cricketer and a worthy opponent. He was someone we loved to hate yet a game was always better for having him play (well, except on those few occasions... :-O). It's a sad day... cheers, Chris Maunder
VC++ - the language that doesn't say 'no'
