<b>, <i> and <u> Depreciation...

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

<b>, <i> and <u> Depreciation...

Post by Benjamin »

I really don't think these tags should be depreciated. It's just so much faster than typing

Code: Select all

<span class="bold">blah</span>
On the other hand, the font tag should RIP.
User avatar
Weirdan
Moderator
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 6:13 pm
Location: Odessa, Ukraine

Post by Weirdan »

Code: Select all

<em>blah</em>
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

I don't know... If you need something quick the font tag is faster than editing both the document and CSS if it is a seperate file. Contrary to popular belief the font tag does have a place. :)
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

Post by Benjamin »

Weirdan wrote:

Code: Select all

<em>blah</em>
So your saying apply css to the em tag eh? Guess that is better than a span, unless the em is already used for something else I suppose.
User avatar
hawleyjr
BeerMod
Posts: 2170
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Jax FL & Spokane WA USA

Re: <b>, <i> and <u> Depreciation...

Post by hawleyjr »

astions wrote:I really don't think these tags should be depreciated. It's just so much faster than typing

Code: Select all

<span class="bold">blah</span>
On the other hand, the font tag should RIP.
I agree with you, If you have a paragraph and need one word bolded this should require a simple tag ;)
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

<b> is not deprecated. It's purely down to context.

EDIT | Oh and and why <span style="font-weight: bold;"> over <strong> or <b> ?
User avatar
pickle
Briney Mod
Posts: 6445
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:11 pm
Location: 53.01N x 112.48W
Contact:

Post by pickle »

<strong> and <em> are now used instead. It's a move to support visual-impaired browsers. Rather than "bold", you mark something as "strong". A visual-impaired browser will then read that text louder or "stronger" somehow. I think it was done to make the developer think in terms that would apply to both regular and visual-impaired browsers.

As for underline...
Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
User avatar
Christopher
Site Administrator
Posts: 13596
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: New York, NY, US

Post by Christopher »

AKA Panama Jack wrote:I don't know... If you need something quick the font tag is faster than editing both the document and CSS if it is a seperate file. Contrary to popular belief the font tag does have a place. :)
The font tag just seems like a less powerful version of:

Code: Select all

<span style="font-weight:bold;">blah</span>
It is easier to always use CSS then you can easily move styles into the stylesheet after playing with inline formatting.
(#10850)
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

pickle wrote:<strong> and <em> are now used instead.
Not instead. Not replaced.

We've covered this already, including links to several GREAT articles explaining the issue:

http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles ... structure/
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/a ... chtml.html
Roja wrote: Bold and italic are still valid. They aren't *replaced* by strong and em.

Think of it this way. If I said, "I want to say this sentence REALLY LOUDLY", thats a strong tag.

If I said, "I don't need this sentence to be spoken loudly, but I want it to appear in bold so it looks better", guess what - thats a bold tag.

See the difference?
pickle wrote:It's a move to support visual-impaired browsers.
No, its not. Assistive browsers understand bold, italic, strong, and em just fine. Its a move to add more semantic meaning to html. Doing so allows you to seperate *meaning* from *styling*.
Post Reply