mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2024-11-10 00:12:09 +00:00
1.2 KiB
1.2 KiB
| title | date | replyURI | replyTitle | replyType | replyAuthor | replyAuthorURI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legacy emphasis in HTML | 2023-01-11T14:44:50-08:00 | https://octodon.social/@jalefkowit/109672348277053943 | 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 | SocialMediaPosting | Jason Lefkowitz | https://jasonlefkowitz.net/ |
Going forward, the CSS Speech Module 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.