W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:40:55 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PzZAt-0007Gy-01@jessica.w3.org>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:44 UTC