1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one synced 2024-11-27 22:12:10 +00:00

Compare commits

..

No commits in common. "85bde27b93922cc23cecc8b3ee2abeea79c6e5de" and "6e641cfdbc845e31360e295a31993eb5998fd90c" have entirely different histories.

View file

@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
---
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/"
syndicatedCopies:
- title: 'The Fediverse'
url: 'https://pleroma.envs.net/notice/ARY1Lj1vvf2mlUPbHM'
---
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.