On 20 Jul 2002, it is alleged that fantasai sauntered in to netscape.public.mozilla.documentation and loudly proclaimed:
> John Keiser wrote: >> fantasai wrote: >> > But using <b> to do so will not help anyone without a graphical >> > browser. At least if you declare your intent--which is to highlight >> > the information--someone can write the necessary style rules for >> > devices with other capabilities. >> >> But that's the intent with b and i. Highlighting is presentational. >> The fact that non-graphical browsers highlight things differently >> just means they have a different presentation. > > By highlighting, I meant making text stand out. That's not the intent > with <b> and <i>. <b> means use bold-face type, <i> means use an italic > font. It does not mean "make this stand out". In the HTML spec, they > are explicitly associated with changing font style, *not* for attaching > semantics. Here's an example: > > <h1>The Hobbit</h1> <h1>The Hobbit</h1> > <b>by J. R. R. Tolkien</b> <strong>by J. R. R. > Tolkien</strong> > > In the first snippet, I have listed the title and the author of a > document. The author line is bold. In the second, I have also listed > the title and the author of the document, and in Mozilla, it is also > bold. But that's just the presentation in Mozilla--in another browser, > it could be rendered in italics or in a red font, or in a bigger font, > or any number of other formats that make the text stand out. You see, > in the second one, the author line is emphasized. If I were to read it > aloud to you, I would stress the author line. (Perhaps it's quoting the > title page to point out that the author is Tolkien, not C. S. Lewis.) > I would not do that with the first snippet because it is not meant to > be emphasized. At least, the author hasn't told me to emphasize > it--only to make it bold, which as far as I can tell, is just a > formatting convention to make it look pretty. Not necessarily. Consider a standard bibliographical entry: Tolkein, J. R. R. <i>The Hobbit</i>. Place: Publisher, date. In this case, <i> would be correct, whereas <em> would be incorrect, since book titles (as a few other things) are italicised. It's purely presentational; no semantic or content-based meaning is implied. /b. >> Non-graphical browsers most likely interpret b the same as strong, >> and i the same as em. > > They shouldn't. If some do it's only because most authors are negligent > and mapping <b> to <strong> and <i> to <em> is a good enough guess that > they find it makes reading pages easier for their clients. > >> And b is a helluvalot easier to type than strong. Vilify me if you >> want for not wanting to type 10 extra characters every time I want to > >> highlight a sentence ... > > I'm not going to vilify you for that. I completely understand that > typing so many extra characters is a chore--I code by hand too, you > know. If you're using a text editor with search & replace, though, is > it too much to ask you to run a replacement on <b> and <i>? As the > author, you will know when <b> really means <strong> and when it's just > there for formatting. > > ~fantasai > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? (No, I don't, actually. . . .) > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > http://health.yahoo.com
