Page 1 of 1
<b>, <i> and <u> Depreciation...
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:52 pm
by Benjamin
I really don't think these tags should be depreciated. It's just so much faster than typing
On the other hand, the font tag should RIP.
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:58 pm
by Weirdan
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:58 pm
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.

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:01 pm
by Benjamin
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.
Re: <b>, <i> and <u> Depreciation...
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:06 pm
by hawleyjr
astions wrote:I really don't think these tags should be depreciated. It's just so much faster than typing
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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:21 pm
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> ?
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:27 pm
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...
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:37 pm
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:18 pm
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*.