W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2012

[Bug 12154] b and strong are font-weight: bolder in implementations, not font-weight: bold

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:11:54 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Rt0CQ-0001fP-Cs@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #27 from Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> 2012-02-02 17:11:53 UTC ---
The fact that font-weight: bold means they're a no-op in headings is a
reasonable point -- nested <b> is probably an authoring mistake, but <b> nested
in <h*> is probably intended to do something.  But if authors want to further
offset text in headings, they're best served by italics or such.  That will
work consistently cross-platform, which nested <b> won't for the foreseeable
future unless the author selects fonts carefully.  E.g., Verdana seems to
support only two weights, and that's one of the most popular web fonts in
existence.  Such fonts are not going away.  But I'm starting to sound like a
broken record.

Regardless, I agree with Simon that <b> and <strong> need to be the same here. 
Having them both font-weight: bolder is better than having them differ, IMO.

Configure bugmail: https://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 Thursday, 2 February 2012 17:12:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:26 UTC