- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexeyf@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:15:34 +0200
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:08:20 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: > I believe the current definition of the B element allows for such use: > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-b > > "The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from > the normal prose without conveying any extra importance, such as key > words in a document abstract, product names in a review, or other spans > of text whose typical typographic presentation is boldened." This describes <b> as a presentational element, but my proposal makes it semantic. On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:05:44 +0200, Brian Kardell <bkardell at gmail.com> wrote: > Can you please explain precisely how this would differ from <strong> > which really should work exactly as you described? Is it really mostly > just the fact that some search engines don't accurately respect <strong> > as being the essential equivalent of <b>? If so, then I would like to > suggest that this might not be the best solution, and that suggesting > some alternative tag for semantics isn't probably going to help solve > this problem in any meaningful way since the recommendations that we > have around now have been available for search engines to figure out > and implement for longer than some of the engines themselves. Could you > not achieve what you are looking for with meta tags or some alternative > means? Using a different tag name would suffer from the chicken-and-egg probem, and the advantage of <b> is that it's already widely used for exactly the purpose proposed. > Just my 2 cents for what they are worth. Also - it is very possible that > I don't understand, if so could you expand? Taking into account the very special date on which this discussion is happening should clarify matters. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexeyf at opera.com> [ICQ: 115226275] http://my.opera.com/feldgendler/
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 10:15:34 UTC