- From: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:33:35 +0200
On 2.5.2012 4:39, 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? Well I can imagine usage of italic or bold in text without <strong> and <em> semantics... imagine prose about hero in quiet night and jet passing above his/her head... the sound of the jet and the hero response... nice adepts for italic and bold.... But yes... no reason for existence of b, u, s, i elements. B.
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 23:33:35 UTC