Comments on: HTML5: <b> and <i> tags are going to be useful (read: semantic) again! http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/ On web design, technology, the Philippines, and more. Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:14:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Who Says -b- and -i- are Non-semantic Markup? | HowWhyWeb.com http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-71526 Who Says -b- and -i- are Non-semantic Markup? | HowWhyWeb.com Wed, 19 May 2010 19:36:35 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-71526 [...] got to the bottom of what “semantic” actually means. Maybe that’s why HTML5 will let them go free. But while we can’t all have a different interpretation of what a tag does, who says we [...] [...] got to the bottom of what “semantic” actually means. Maybe that’s why HTML5 will let them go free. But while we can’t all have a different interpretation of what a tag does, who says we [...]

]]> By: ia http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-33784 ia Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:27:05 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-33784 Usage will always vary by locale, the same way grammar does, but again I raise my point about word processors using B, I, and U not just for <em>styling</em> text but giving meaning to text. For decades, it's been dictated to us that if you're going to cite the title of a book, it should be in italics. HTML should be the same way, ideally. Don't ask the people to memorize a completely different tag for just the title of a book. Usage will always vary by locale, the same way grammar does, but again I raise my point about word processors using B, I, and U not just for styling text but giving meaning to text. For decades, it’s been dictated to us that if you’re going to cite the title of a book, it should be in italics. HTML should be the same way, ideally. Don’t ask the people to memorize a completely different tag for just the title of a book.

]]> By: Ian http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-33783 Ian Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:18:21 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-33783 The examples are too shallow: "stylistically offset" a span of text from the natural flow? <span class="some_class_to_set_it_apart> comes to mind. Tedious, sure, but semantically correct, and in line with the W3C's objective of separating content from presentation. Encouraging the use of presentational elements in HTML is a step backward in the evolution of the language. "Usage varies by language" -- precisely the reason why contextual standards should be in place. The examples are too shallow: “stylistically offset” a span of text from the natural flow? <span class=”some_class_to_set_it_apart> comes to mind. Tedious, sure, but semantically correct, and in line with the W3C’s objective of separating content from presentation.

Encouraging the use of presentational elements in HTML is a step backward in the evolution of the language. “Usage varies by language” — precisely the reason why contextual standards should be in place.

]]> By: JC John SESE Cuneta http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31682 JC John SESE Cuneta Fri, 02 May 2008 10:55:57 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31682 Yah, hehe. It'll be very interesting to see how B vs STRONG and I vs EM will turn out. Well, overall it is good W3C will re-introduce basic HTML rather than blended XHTML. Yah, hehe. It’ll be very interesting to see how B vs STRONG and I vs EM will turn out. Well, overall it is good W3C will re-introduce basic HTML rather than blended XHTML.

]]> By: ia http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31672 ia Fri, 02 May 2008 06:26:23 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31672 Of course there can be presentational differences with CSS. But I get your point, which is kind of my point too: if we've been using B and I in word processors to denote all those things, including emphasis, why do we need STRONG and EM anyway? But I think the HTML5 descriptions for B and I differentiate themselves enough from STRONG and EM already. It's now up to the HTML coders if they think it's too big of an issue to follow it! Of course there can be presentational differences with CSS. But I get your point, which is kind of my point too: if we’ve been using B and I in word processors to denote all those things, including emphasis, why do we need STRONG and EM anyway? But I think the HTML5 descriptions for B and I differentiate themselves enough from STRONG and EM already. It’s now up to the HTML coders if they think it’s too big of an issue to follow it!

]]> By: JC John SESE Cuneta http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31671 JC John SESE Cuneta Fri, 02 May 2008 04:17:09 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31671 Ah I see it now. B and I can be used now for almost anything except 'emphasis' which is the purpose of STRONG and EM. If that's the case, wouldn't be better if we drop STRONG and EM then? I mean, it's not like there's any presentational difference between B and STRONG; I and EM. Unlike when compared to INS and DEL. Unless W3C plans on imposing a presentational difference for B and I similar to INS and DEL. Ah I see it now. B and I can be used now for almost anything except ‘emphasis’ which is the purpose of STRONG and EM.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t be better if we drop STRONG and EM then? I mean, it’s not like there’s any presentational difference between B and STRONG; I and EM. Unlike when compared to INS and DEL.

Unless W3C plans on imposing a presentational difference for B and I similar to INS and DEL.

]]> By: ia http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31658 ia Thu, 01 May 2008 15:23:03 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-31658 JC, it never was deprecated. It was just deemed unsemantic. B and I still work, and they don't cause invalid HTML documents. But as I have mentioned, in HTML5 it will have new recommended uses which help support the idea that they can be semantic elements too. To avoid creating new elements, too, I'm sure. We don't really need new elements that address what can be done using typographic conventions. Which is what the new uses of B and I basically are. JC, it never was deprecated. It was just deemed unsemantic. B and I still work, and they don’t cause invalid HTML documents. But as I have mentioned, in HTML5 it will have new recommended uses which help support the idea that they can be semantic elements too. To avoid creating new elements, too, I’m sure. We don’t really need new elements that address what can be done using typographic conventions. Which is what the new uses of B and I basically are.

]]> By: Rico S. http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-30482 Rico S. Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:25:08 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-30482 @ia, I agree, and my position in the issue is to just go and use B and I anyway. For instance, if I just have to italicize something (like a part of a mailing address? I can't think of an example now), and not give it "emphasis" from a block of text as EM suggests, I don't mind adding in an I tag. @ia, I agree, and my position in the issue is to just go and use B and I anyway. For instance, if I just have to italicize something (like a part of a mailing address? I can’t think of an example now), and not give it “emphasis” from a block of text as EM suggests, I don’t mind adding in an I tag.

]]> By: ia http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-30481 ia Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:19:11 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-30481 In the case of HTML/CSS, it's meaningful as opposed to merely presentational, which bold and italic tags are. However, that becomes a problem with writing conventions that are dependent on the likes of bold and italic to actually provide meaning. So that's the dilemma right there. Do you use or create a different element just to provide meaning and avoid presentational markup, or compromise? In the case of HTML/CSS, it’s meaningful as opposed to merely presentational, which bold and italic tags are. However, that becomes a problem with writing conventions that are dependent on the likes of bold and italic to actually provide meaning. So that’s the dilemma right there. Do you use or create a different element just to provide meaning and avoid presentational markup, or compromise?

]]> By: Rico S. http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-30480 Rico S. Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:14:51 +0000 http://stellify.net/html5-b-and-i-tags-are-going-to-be-useful-read-semantic-again/#comment-30480 I never really fully subscribed to the B-and-I-are-not-semantic school of thought. What makes B less meaningful that STRONG anyway? (Bonus: even if you look up 'bold' and 'strong' in the dictionary they're pretty much the same.) I never really fully subscribed to the B-and-I-are-not-semantic school of thought. What makes B less meaningful that STRONG anyway? (Bonus: even if you look up ‘bold’ and ‘strong’ in the dictionary they’re pretty much the same.)

]]>