Mozilla/Firebird & bold type
Moderator: General Moderators
- Toneboy
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:59 am
- Location: Law, Scotland.
- Contact:
Mozilla/Firebird & bold type
Well, after years of nearly always using IE I finally downloaded the Mozilla/Firebird package. At first it was just to check cross-browser functionality, but after being a bit sceptical at first I'm warming to it.
Anyway, I took a look around trulybizarre.co.uk with Firebird, and for the most part I was breathing a sigh of relief. Just one small thing...
If you take a look at the front page in Firebird you'll see way too much of it looks like it is in bold, which isn't the way it is meant to be. For Firebird purposes, is it better to use <strong> instead of <b> tags, or should you go a whole different way and use <div> tags instead?
Anyway, I took a look around trulybizarre.co.uk with Firebird, and for the most part I was breathing a sigh of relief. Just one small thing...
If you take a look at the front page in Firebird you'll see way too much of it looks like it is in bold, which isn't the way it is meant to be. For Firebird purposes, is it better to use <strong> instead of <b> tags, or should you go a whole different way and use <div> tags instead?
- no_memories
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:12 pm
- Location: New York City
-
d3ad1ysp0rk
- Forum Donator
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:31 pm
- Location: Maine, USA
- no_memories
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:12 pm
- Location: New York City
ok,
I was looking at the original post, and it simply was in regards to creating a bold or strong type within a given sentence, if I am correct?
The reason I posted the CSS rule was in reference to the W3C's own recommendations that markup gradually give way to CSS. Older HTML markups are being brushed aside in recent versions of XHTML in favor of CSS.
Firebird is a reflection of these standards being implemented. It doesn't let you get away with open ended tags. I.E. is a bit more forgiving, but if you simply code for I.E. alone, it's almost guaranteed that your site will not display properly in other top browsers. And, as we all know, CSS class selectors take out the redundant nature of older markup.
lol, that was a mouthful.. No pun intended.
I was looking at the original post, and it simply was in regards to creating a bold or strong type within a given sentence, if I am correct?
The reason I posted the CSS rule was in reference to the W3C's own recommendations that markup gradually give way to CSS. Older HTML markups are being brushed aside in recent versions of XHTML in favor of CSS.
Firebird is a reflection of these standards being implemented. It doesn't let you get away with open ended tags. I.E. is a bit more forgiving, but if you simply code for I.E. alone, it's almost guaranteed that your site will not display properly in other top browsers. And, as we all know, CSS class selectors take out the redundant nature of older markup.
lol, that was a mouthful.. No pun intended.
Heh. I think you're over-zealously misinterpreting W3C recs. There's absolutely no reason to code a CSS class for a style that's already handled by a perfectly valid, non-deprecated html tag. This is not the same thing as separating style from markup, because with the use of the <strong> tag you still have all the styling options in the world. But making a new class that does basically nothing is neither more efficient nor recommendable.
- no_memories
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:12 pm
- Location: New York City
lol, you're correct. Most markup is perfectly acceptable in today's standards.
I was simply pointing out an alternative to markup, for what its worth. I am experimenting with layouts based totally on CSS, so I am partial to its use.
But on the other hand, XHTML 2.0 will be cutting out certain markup. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/
Then there is future versions; 3.0 and beyond.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#prohibitions <-- Interesting to look into.
ok, I leave this topic alone now.. lol
peace
I was simply pointing out an alternative to markup, for what its worth. I am experimenting with layouts based totally on CSS, so I am partial to its use.
But on the other hand, XHTML 2.0 will be cutting out certain markup. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/
Then there is future versions; 3.0 and beyond.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#prohibitions <-- Interesting to look into.
ok, I leave this topic alone now.. lol
- Toneboy
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:59 am
- Location: Law, Scotland.
- Contact:
Got it sorted. 
By the way, I don't mean to set off a massive discussion every time I post here, it just seems to happen that way.
Interesting that IE let me get away with some sloppy code. Over the past few days I've come to like Mozilla more and more. At the very least I'll be using it for a lot of testing.
By the way, I don't mean to set off a massive discussion every time I post here, it just seems to happen that way.
Interesting that IE let me get away with some sloppy code. Over the past few days I've come to like Mozilla more and more. At the very least I'll be using it for a lot of testing.
- twigletmac
- Her Royal Site Adminness
- Posts: 5371
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Essex, UK