Jonathan Schofield
@urlyman@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
I agree with Francois above. Here is an argument about the `b` element which is analogous: > Today, if you’re making some text bold because you deem the text _important_, _serious_, or _urgent_, you are asked to use `<strong>`: the **Strong Importance** element. Leaving aside the fact that **Strong Importance** sounds like a Conservative Party slogan, where does that leave `<b>`? > In a somewhat precarious position, in my opinion. Because why would you ever want to literally and figuratively _embolden_ some text **FOR NO REASON**? Or, to put it another way, why would you **Bring Attention To** some text if the reader is to believe it is not worthy of that attention? It may as well be called the **Bwahaha Made You Look** element. I agree with Heydon, who wrote the above as part of an occasional series working through HTML from A to W. He notes at the end: > The really great part is that we’ll be going through this presentational-versus-semantic debacle all over again when we come to `<i>` and `<em>`—if I ever get that far.
I agree with Francois above. Here is an argument about the `b` element which is analogous: > Today, if you’re making some text bold because you deem the text _important_, _serious_, or _urgent_, you are asked to use `<strong>`: the **Strong Importance** element. Leaving aside the fact that **Strong Importance** sounds like a Conservative Party slogan, where does that leave `<b>`? > In a somewhat precarious position, in my opinion. Because why would you ever want to literally and figuratively _embolden_ some text **FOR NO REASON**? Or, to put it another way, why would you **Bring Attention To** some text if the reader is to believe it is not worthy of that attention? It may as well be called the **Bwahaha Made You Look** element. I agree with Heydon, who wrote the above as part of an occasional series working through HTML from A to W. He notes at the end: > The really great part is that we’ll be going through this presentational-versus-semantic debacle all over again when we come to `<i>` and `<em>`—if I ever get that far.
I agree with Francois above. Here is an argument about the `b` element which is analogous: > Today, if you’re making some text bold because you deem the text _important_, _serious_, or _urgent_, you are asked to use `<strong>`: the **Strong Importance** element. Leaving aside the fact that **Strong Importance** sounds like a Conservative Party slogan, where does that leave `<b>`? > In a somewhat precarious position, in my opinion. Because why would you ever want to literally and figuratively _embolden_ some text **FOR NO REASON**? Or, to put it another way, why would you **Bring Attention To** some text if the reader is to believe it is not worthy of that attention? It may as well be called the **Bwahaha Made You Look** element. I agree with Heydon, who wrote the above as part of an occasional series working through HTML from A to W. He notes at the end: > The really great part is that we’ll be going through this presentational-versus-semantic debacle all over again when we come to `<i>` and `<em>`—if I ever get that far.
Home Login