- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 16:46:45 -0700
- To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On May 6, 2007, at 4:30 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> You claimed that Web Apps 1.0 would somehow encourage more author >> use of <b> to mark up headers. I assumed no one would make this >> claim if they were aware of <h*>, <header>, the sectioning >> algorithm, and the fact that it does not condone use of <b> for >> headers in any way. Here's a direct quote: "The b element should >> be used as a last resort when no other element is more >> appropriate. In particular, headers should use the h1 to h6 >> elements..." It also does not make <b> equivalent to <strong>. > > Turning this around, then: what situations do we have where people > would use <b> as a last resort? Apart from authoring tools that > only offer a B button? And not talking about legacy content (which > would have to be revised, even in light of the current spec). <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." There's also some examples given. Note that this is just what the current spec says. Some would argue that <b> should also be allowed for emphasizing uses of bold (thus giving an overlap of semantics with <strong>). But I think this is distinct from arguing whether <b> has any valid use and whether it should be removed. I would hope the kinds of uses above are non- controversial. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 23:46:54 UTC