mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2024-11-10 00:12:09 +00:00
16 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
16 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
title: "Legacy emphasis in HTML"
|
||
|
|
date: 2023-01-11T14:44:50-08:00
|
||
|
|
replyURI: "https://octodon.social/@jalefkowit/109672348277053943"
|
||
|
|
replyTitle: "who decided it would be a good idea to teach beginning web developers that <B> is the “Bring Attention To” tag and <I> is the “Idiomatic Text” tag"
|
||
|
|
replyType: "SocialMediaPosting"
|
||
|
|
replyAuthor: "Jason Lefkowitz"
|
||
|
|
replyAuthorURI: "https://jasonlefkowitz.net/"
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
Going forward, the [CSS Speech Module](https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-speech/) seems like a better place for auditory tonal indicators. The CSS we've already had for years should be a better place for visual presentation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This leaves only a minuscule semantic difference between `<i>` and `<em>`, or `<b>` and `<strong>`, as outlined in the HTML Living Standard. I don't think that difference warrants extra elements in the HTML standard: the extra elements likely create more confusion than actual benefit. Over the past decade, I'm unaware of any user-agents treating them differently enough, in a way that aligns with author intent, to matter.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I personally just avoid `<i>` and `<b>` when authoring. The complexity is more trouble than it's worth.
|
||
|
|
|