- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:40:55 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12154
Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|b and strong should be |b and strong are
|font-weight: bolder, not |font-weight: bolder in
|font-weight: bold. IE9 RC, |implementations, not
|Firefox 4b11, and WebKit |font-weight: bold
|all agree, with only Opera |
|differing. Test case: |
|data:text/html,<!doctype |
|html><p |
|style=font-weight:100><b>Sh |
|ould be bold per current |
|spec</b> |
--- Comment #1 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-03-15 18:40:54 UTC ---
I should add that I personally think font-weight: bold makes more sense in
practice. In particular, execCommand("bold") should use <b> if it's sensible,
but that might create an unexpected result if it's nested in something with a
non-normal font-weight. Currently I have to work around this with stupid
hacks, and it would be nice if I didn't have to.
On Linux (Ubuntu 10.10), this test-case shows that higher font-weights don't
look any bolder in practice anyway:
data:text/html,<!doctype html>
<p style=font-weight:700>Bold
<p style=font-weight:900>Bolder
Tested in Firefox 4 RC, Chrome 11 dev, and Opera 11. But it will create
confusing effects if nested inside font-weight: 100 or something. So actually
I'd suggest WONTFIX.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 18:40:56 UTC