3 ms·
Hogwash!!! Many of those tags provide semantic meaning, like strong. Also, if what you need to create is a table of data, then what else would you use beside t
by nathanwdavis 17y ago
Hogwash!!! Many of those tags provide semantic meaning, like strong. Also, if what you need to create is a table of data, then what else would you use beside table.
This linkbait has cost the author more reputation than it was worth.
- aarongough 17y agoAgreed. The <b> and <bold> tags are not so great, but tags that only convey meaning rather than style ( like <strong>, <em>, etc...) are definitely far better than using <span class="bold"> for everything.
- masklinn 17y ago> Also, if what you need to create is a table of data, then what else would you use beside table. To be fair, TFAA does specify that his rule is about <table> for layout. And yeah, <strong> definitely doesn't belong to the list, TFAA's defense of that in the comment is <weak>.
- kevinholesh 17y agoI love your use of <weak> there. I know it's a joke, but I would find it useful as a real HTML tag. There are certain things on the page that are less important than a regular <p> or <li>. It would be nice to add some semantic meaning to the article rather than only making the color lighter in the stylesheet.
- coderdude 17y agoI'm into semantics in HTML as much as the next guy, but do you think there is an HTML processor out there that notes a subtle semantic difference between bold and strong? It's pedantic. I don't even know why people still discuss this non-issue when better methods for embedding semantics in markup are _all over the place_.
- masklinn 17y ago> but do you think there is an HTML processor out there that notes a subtle semantic difference between bold and strong? Screen reader might. And anyway, the subtle semantic difference between <strong> and <b> is that <b> has no semantic significance whatsoever. That's not very subtle.