- From: Shaun Moss <shaun@astromultimedia.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:57:40 +1000
Sure, I agree - so, deprecate the <b>, <i>, <u> and <s> tags then. On 2012-05-02 12:39 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 11:31 +1000, Shaun Moss wrote: >> I know it's contentious, but as a teacher it's very simple to teach >> students of HTML5 that: >> <u> = underline >> <b> = bold >> <i> = italic >> <s> = strikethrough >> >> Of course, I also teach<strong> and<em>, but the simplest way to teach >> <b> and<i> is that it's merely an easy way to create bold or italic >> text when the meaning of<strong> or<em> doesn't apply. They represent >> a convenience that spares the author the work of using span tags and >> creating a CSS class with font-weight or font-style properties.<u> is >> the same, just an easy way to create underlined text. It doesn't really >> need semantics piled on top of it - that just makes it harder to teach >> and learn. But using Chinese names or misspelled text as /examples/ of >> when to use<u> is another matter. >> >> I grok the desire to have all tags defined semantically, but if the >> semantic definitions add unnecessary complexity, then it just seems like >> a kludge. Anyone can understand<b> = bold. >> >> Shaun >> >> >> >> On 2012-04-30 3:46 PM, Andr?s Sanhueza wrote: >> > The<u> element was made conforming due to widespread usage and for >> > some cases were other elements weren't suitable. However, I feel that >> > the current definition is not very clear, as it gives two somewhat >> > unrelated used for it: misspelled text and proper names on Chinese. I >> > believe that is fine if is one or the other, but by the current >> > definition seems that the purpose of retaining the element is merely >> > were to underline needs to be used to represent something regardless >> > what it is, which seems inconsistent with other similar tags that are >> > better defined to have more finite purposes that aren't based on the >> > fallback presentational look, even if relevant at the time of defining >> > those. By the definitions seems that proper names and book names are >> > suitable to be indicated by<b> and<cite> respectively; or some new >> > element altogether. I'm aware that the fallback look is an issue, yet >> > I believe it should be resolved in a more consistent way. >> > > I still seems more important to ask why something should be bold or > italic. Surely getting students into the mindset of describing their > data is more beneficial? > -- > Thanks, > Ash > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > -- Shaun Moss +61 405478912 facebook.com/mossy2100 twitter.com/mossy2100 skype: mossy2100 groups.drupal.org: mossy2100
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:57:40 UTC