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.
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.
<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.
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:
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*.