Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Discuss Subject: Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out? Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > The use of and in lieu of and is aimed NOT at > the visual presentation (ignoring screwing with the em->i and > strong->b mappings via CSS) but at AUDIO (ie

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: The use of and in lieu of and is aimed NOT at the visual presentation (ignoring screwing with the em->i and strong->b mappings via CSS) but at AUDIO (ie: Screen Reader) presentation. I would respectfully disagree. Whereas and were targetted specifically at v

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

At 11:24 +0100 on 02/17/2014, Peter H. wrote about Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be so: It's also true that the browser by default draws an italic font for 'emphasis' and a bold font for 'strong' so the result is equally presentational. Dunno why they couldn't have left

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

2014-02-17 19:35, Richard Grevers wrote: It must be remembered that the presentation layer is optional, and CSS isn't always available. It might be due to a server error or timeout (i experience that on maybe 1% of page loads), or, as HTML rendering capability extends to ever-smaller devices, a

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

feb 17 2014 18:51 Micky Hulse : > Ya'll, I hate to be rude, but isn't markup debates a little OT for CSS-d? Actually it is indeed OT, except for where it ties in directly with CSS. References to external discussions on the topic are not OT, IMHO. So good point.

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

17 feb 2014 kl. 18:35 skrev Richard Grevers : > But if the differentiation > of such text matters, it makes sense to use markup that will differentiate > it regardless of the availability of CSS. A valid point. > In most cases this is or > , often with a class to classify it semantically. Wi

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Ya'll, I hate to be rude, but isn't markup debates a little OT for CSS-d? __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

It must be remembered that the presentation layer is optional, and CSS isn't always available. It might be due to a server error or timeout (i experience that on maybe 1% of page loads), or, as HTML rendering capability extends to ever-smaller devices, a physical limitation. has no default presen

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Barney Carroll wrote (probably citing one of the finite-but-unbounded number of HTML 5 draft specifications) : The em element isn't a generic "italics" element. Correct. It has no connection with "italics" at all other than a historical one. Sometimes, text isintended to stand out from th

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

> El 17/02/2014, a las 11:29, Barney Carroll escribió: > > While bikeshedding around 'how semantic' people feel any given element to be > is a great laugh (although definitely off-topic for this list), I would > highly recommend the HTML specification for insight into the purpose of any > HTML

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

While bikeshedding around 'how semantic' people feel any given element to be is a great laugh (although definitely off-topic for this list), I would highly recommend the HTML specification for insight into the purpose of any HTML element, especially when confusion arises over the possibility of usi

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

> El 17/02/2014, a las 11:01, Philip Taylor escribió: > > Peter H. wrote: >> I've always had a problem understanding why and are >> supposedly more semantic than and . > > Because means "emphasised" and means "strongly emphasised" > (semantic, saying nothing about how they will be rendered)

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Peter H. wrote: I've always had a problem understanding why and are supposedly more semantic than and . Because means "emphasised" and means "strongly emphasised" (semantic, saying nothing about how they will be rendered) whilst means "set in italics" and means "set in bold" (presenta

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

I've always had a problem understanding why and are supposedly more semantic than and . Italics don't necessarily indicate emphasis and bold doesn't necessarily indicate importance. Often they're nods to traditional comprehension of things or to the organisation of a text so as to aid unders

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

On Feb 16, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: > The problem with and is that HTML5 gives them semantic meaning but > they also have inherent styling. > > Of I use these elements in a multilingual envirnonment, then for some > languages I would need to change weight or style to normal

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

> is any more semantic that , , , or ? On scanning it seems there were responses but none with respect to the spec, which is usually very helpful: (as well as ) have literally no meaning—“[t]he span element doesn't mean anything on its own” [1], “[t]he div element has no special meaning at all”

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

feb 16 2014 23:49 Andrew Cunningham : > The problem with and is that HTML5 gives them semantic meaning but > they also have inherent styling. How is that different from any semantical element? > > Of I use these elements in a multilingual envirnonment, then for some > languages I would need

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

On Feb 16, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Chris Rockwell wrote: > I'm afraid I misunderstand you here, John: "semantic markup of HTML5 is > limited to entire divs,"; this might not be farther from the truth. A > is a very abstract way to markup content and there is most likely a better > way to do it i

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

The problem with and is that HTML5 gives them semantic meaning but they also have inherent styling. Of I use these elements in a multilingual envirnonment, then for some languages I would need to change weight or style to normal, then use styling appropriate to the language. Andrew On 17/02/2

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

> > It also seems that the semantic markup of HTML5 is limited to entire divs, > for example, and doesn't speak to the individual word or words which are a > subset of the divs..unless those words are in their own divs, rather than > contained within others so tagged with proper semantic markup. >

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Is the best (or better) practice to A) reduce markup and B) leverage the power of CSS which is to write once/apply many? it seems we all agree that bold and italic do have important meaning, as they have had in print for approximately 600 years. It also seems that the semantic markup of HTML5 i

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

2014-02-16 20:52, John Johnson skrev: is any more semantic that , , , or ? I am not a CSS wizard (yet) but I love that is available, and I use it instead of the others, which are basically inline styles, the greater sin, are they not? I do not visualize how items within, say, divs, can be

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

This is such a joy! Thank you all for such a lively exchange. First off, my memory betrayed me: it turns out the S and U elements *were* deprecated in HTML 4.01 [1], but they managed to make a comeback in HTML 5. This puzzles me even further, if that is even possible. I get lost with the demarcatio

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

> > All these elements are still around [1-4] in the canonical HTML spec > > [5]. Their meanings have changed slightly, making them less > > presentational than in the past. > > I would respectfully disagree. Their meanings have not changed one > iota; I think this is letter vs. spirit of the spe

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Jens O. Meiert wrote: All these elements are still around [1-4] in the canonical HTML spec [5]. Their meanings have changed slightly, making them less presentational than in the past. I would respectfully disagree. Their meanings have not changed one iota; the fact that the draft specificat

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

is any more semantic that , , , or ? I am not a CSS wizard (yet) but I love that is available, and I use it instead of the others, which are basically inline styles, the greater sin, are they not? I do not visualize how items within, say, divs, can be differentiated, when need be, without

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

> I'm actually glad I and B are "survivors", but seeing that U and S have been > deprecated, it doesn't seem very consistent All these elements are still around [1-4] in the canonical HTML spec [5]. Their meanings have changed slightly, making them less presentational than in the past. That they s

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

e of older, > so-called 'deprecated' facilities. > > It's also silly to expect authors to comb through all of their older pages > to eliminate everything that is not currently advocated by the numerous > gurus. > > Is this deprecation nonsense known outside of the

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

erything that is not currently advocated by the numerous gurus.   Is this deprecation nonsense known outside of the PC-world?   Bruce    [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out __ css-discuss [css-d@l

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

I'll also add, this may be better suited for wha...@lists.whatwg.org On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Ezequiel Garzón wrote: > Greetings to all, > > I know this is highly subjective question, but am curious as to what > people think about this issue. Allow me to put forth a few questions, > and

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

The way I read the documentation (which could be incorrectly), there is no reason for them to be deprecated as they (, , , , etc.) all serve their own semantic purpose. Side note: thank you for bringing up this question, as I don't think I would have read the documentation on these elements otherw

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Le 16 févr. 2014 à 07:47, Ezequiel Garzón a écrit : > I know this is highly subjective question, but am curious as to what > people think about this issue. Allow me to put forth a few questions, > and you can pick all of any of them. When the WHATWG describes the I > element as "a span of text i

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

On 2/15/14, 4:40 PM, Eric wrote: I agree with Colin...I don't like them either. But, they do remain in HTML5 Eric On February 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM Ezequiel Garzón wrote: Greetings to all, I know this is highly subjective question, but am curiou

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Don't forget that while W3C may (or may not) decide that B and I are no longer appropriate to keep in the standards, user-agents that maintain compatibility with older standards will continue to work. The "elimination" of a tag will be a slow process, if it can ever be completed at all; all that pr

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

I agree with Colin...I don't like them either. But, they do remain in HTML5 Eric > On February 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM Ezequiel Garzón > wrote: > > > Greetings to all, > > I know this is highly subjective question, but am curious as to what > people th

Re: [css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Interesting question. Much as I personally dislike them, web-app editors like tinyMCE and FCK rely on tags like and and I don't see why those programs couldn't be re-written to use . But it would cause some developers to jump around quickly. On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ezequiel Garzón w

[css-d] Will the unsemantic HTML elements B and I be soon phased out?

Greetings to all, I know this is highly subjective question, but am curious as to what people think about this issue. Allow me to put forth a few questions, and you can pick all of any of them. When the WHATWG describes the I element as "a span of text in an alternate voice or mood", and the B ele