6 ms·
This might be tangentially but as a 90's/2000's brat I've always been confounded by the old maxim, "HTML is for markup not presentation" and sure but if that wa
by AfterHIA 1y ago
This might be tangentially but as a 90's/2000's brat I've always been confounded by the old maxim, "HTML is for markup not presentation" and sure but if that was true why are there clearly a bunch of tags which don't meaningfully markup anything except to tell the browser to display the text some way? I'm thinking, "<i>", or, "<b>."
Your average person building a webpage early on wasn't concerned about markup. I've never met anyone that isn't a LaTeX user or software developer that cared about markup. We cared about how the page would look and how it behaved (how it was, "animated.") Fundamentally there's a lack of appreciation for, "web design as a painterly exercise" and that to me creates the crisis. The humane discipline of designing a webpage is in most respects divorced from the act of coding a website. It's fundamentally a question of ethics and aesthetics; of, "whys."
- badbotty 1y agoThese elements have non-presentational definitions in the current spec. A screen reader could make use of the semantic difference between <strong> and <b>, even though desktop browsers default to presenting them the same way. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-i-element https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics....