RE: I want to make one word Bold

HTML (XHTML, XML) should be used to mark-up the structure of information.
Mark-up should define what something IS, not what it LOOKS LIKE.

For example:

<b> says "the contained text should be displayed bold".

<strong> says "the contained text is strongly emphasized".

Think for a moment about the difference between those two statements.  Think
exactly what the two tags are describing.

The <b>, <i>, <font>, <tt> and other formatting tags are perfect if we have
the view that our documents will only EVER be used visually.

However, that is not the case.

Examples of other ways are pages might be used:

 - Aural or braille browsers
 - Search engines (indexing spiders)
 - Other automation designed to manipulate the structure of your data (XML
and XSLT processors)

I'm sure we're all familiar with the search engines giving <h1> higher
priority than <p class="big">, even though the two might LOOK the same to
you.

Use structural mark-up whenever possible.  More information about the
structure you can add to text can be found at:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html

Forget that you can use HTML to make a word bold.  Use HTML to define that
it should be emphasized strongly.  Then, if you are not happy with the
browser's default formatting of this element, use CSS to redefine how the
text should be visually formatted.

Tim









> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: 16 August 2001 22:15
> To: bryan.westbrook(at)amd.com
> Cc: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: RE: I want to make one word Bold
>
>
>
> <.rant>
> Why would they make a six-character tag (strong) the standard
> when they
> could have saved us the extra five keystrokes by making <.b> the
> standard?  Seems illogical to me.  If you have enough bold
> items in your
> document, those extra heaps of characters compound and translate into
> large file sizes.  Doesn't seem to jive with the idea of
> simplicity with
> web standards.  Same goes for <.em> and <.i>
> <./rant>
>
> Mike
>
>  On Thu, 16 Aug 2001
> bryan.westbrook(at)amd.com wrote:
>
> > <.strong> is the more currently accepted tag among those
> who are discerning
> > enough to want to do things right.
> >
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA