3 ms·
Ah, yes, I just noticed. Wasn't this marked as deprecated in HTML 5.2? Now the Living Standard explicitly notes that <b> isn't necessarily rendered as bold (bec
by masswerk 7y ago
Ah, yes, I just noticed. Wasn't this marked as deprecated in HTML 5.2? Now the Living Standard explicitly notes that <b> isn't necessarily rendered as bold (because it might be overridden by style sheets), by this loosening the connection to typographical appearance.
As for the over-engineered part: I usually try not using spans or similar in markup to separate short terms or phrases, where there's a change in meaning or the level of information, rather using emphasis (<em>) for this. 99% of the time I end up styling this as italics. Because, this is really what typographical emphasis is all about.
P.S.: And I always failed to recognize the crucial difference in meaning of "bold" and "strong". Both in speech and type these are quite the same concept to me, "bold" may be even be a bit more general and specific at the same time. (E.g., "bold" is not shout, but it's about a general concept of raised importance, which isn't clearly expressed by "strong".)
- masswerk 7y agoAs a sidenote, as I now recall it, I was just too shocked by the phasing out of framesets in order to recognize the "undeprecation" of <b> and <i>. (I really fail to see where it helps, if future browsers fail to present historic documents in appropriate and meaningful context. Even more so, when 99% of these structures could be easily translated to semantic regions and landmarks, like header/banner, main, footer, aside, etc, even navigations could be inferred with ease by screen readers. Moreover, screen readers now have to support dynamic updates of isolated regions anyway in order to cope with JS frameworks. There was probably never a time, when frames would have posed that small a problem than at this point in time.)
- saltminer 7y ago>Now the Living Standard explicitly notes that <b> isn't necessarily rendered as bold (because it might be overridden by style sheets), by this loosening the connection to typographical appearance. This is some pretty selective reasoning by the working group considering they don't provide a warning for all other elements (not even <strong> or <em>, which can also be overridden by stylesheets). I could toss a "p { display: none !important; }" into my stylesheet, yet the <p> tag doesn't have a warning that text inside it might not be displayed. Seems like they're grasping for reasons to discourage <b> and <i>.