On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:08:20 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe the current definition of the B element allows for such use:
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."
This describes <b> as a presentational element, but my proposal makes it
semantic.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:05:44 +0200, Brian Kardell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Can you please explain precisely how this would differ from <strong>
which really should work exactly as you described? Is it really mostly
just the fact that some search engines don't accurately respect <strong>
as being the essential equivalent of <b>? If so, then I would like to
suggest that this might not be the best solution, and that suggesting
some alternative tag for semantics isn't probably going to help solve
this problem in any meaningful way since the recommendations that we
have around now have been available for search engines to figure out
and implement for longer than some of the engines themselves. Could you
not achieve what you are looking for with meta tags or some alternative
means?
Using a different tag name would suffer from the chicken-and-egg probem,
and the advantage of <b> is that it's already widely used for exactly the
purpose proposed.
Just my 2 cents for what they are worth. Also - it is very possible that
I don't understand, if so could you expand?
Taking into account the very special date on which this discussion is
happening should clarify matters.
--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://my.opera.com/feldgendler/
