On 18 Feb 2009 JJ van Poll wrote: > In message <502f57db9easg...@inspire.net.nz> > Keith Hopper <asg...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
>> In article <502f456d69...@timil.com>, >> Tim Hill <t...@timil.com> wrote: >>> In article <ca253e2f50.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard Porter >>> <r...@minijem.plus.com> wrote: >>>> On 17 Feb 2009 Keith Hopper wrote: >>>>> The element which should be used is the 'em' element and, instead of >>>>> the 'b' element, use 'strong'. The reason for the others being >>>>> deprecated >>> they're not >> May I refer you to >> http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmltags/a/bltags_deprctag.htm > But look here: > http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmltags/p/bltags_b.htm In the tag list at http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmltags/l/blhtmlreference.htm <b> and <i> are not shown as deprecated, although <s> and <u> are, which is a shame because it's a lot quicker to type <s>xxx</s> than <span class="someclassorother">xxx</span> and then go to your stylesheet and type in the class definition. The trouble with CSS is that it can be like using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. It seems like a good idea but it's taken on a life of its own and has gone far beyond the limit of its usefulness. It should be "horses for courses". What's right for a large corporate web site isn't necessarily right for a small personal one. -- _ |_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ |\_||_ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com Disclaimer: Please imagine about 50 lines of pointless clutter.
