- From: Carl Johan Berglund <f92-cbe@nada.kth.se>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 17:19:22 +0200
- 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 UTC