W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1996

Re: CSS and Eccentric Poems.

From: Carl Johan Berglund <f92-cbe@nada.kth.se>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 17:19:22 +0200
Message-Id: <31DBE0FA.64D5@nada.kth.se>
To: Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@hol.gr>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
> I tried that once. Try looking at an HTML source that's got STRONG and EM
> tags scattered all about it. HORROR! Why did they use full words for tags
> that were preferred over tags that where single lettered? I basically
> stopped using these tags because I was bored of writing <STRONG></STRONG>
> and <EM></EM> instead of <B></B> and <I></I> alla the time. And I
> couldn't debug my source.

Honestly, I don't find <STRONG> and <EM> hard to read (even though
I agree it's easier to write <B> and <I>), especially not when
compared to all these pages with <FONT SIZE=2 COLOR=#23898f FACE=
"Copperplate Gothic Bold"> all over them.

If you feel so strongly against <STRONG> and <EM>, keep using <B>
and <I>, and nobody shall ever be unable to read your pages for
that sake... 

> Oh and, in case you want me to use on of these "WYSIWYG" editors, point
> me to one that uses STRONG and EM instead of B and I...

Not that I want to recommend use of HTML editors today, but I have
actually tested one once, that gave me a choice between using <B>
and <I> or <STRONG> and <EM> for what it considered bold and italic.
I'm not sure of which editor it was, but it could have been "Hotdog".

Cajo.

-- 
Carl Johan Berglund <f92-cbe@nada.kth.se>
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~f92-cbe/
Received on Thursday, 4 July 1996 11:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:44 GMT