forked
so what do you guys think about < i > and < b > versus < em > and < strong > ?
--
ultimately, i think that using < em > and < strong > tags is a better practice. likewise, use <cite> for a book name instead of < i >, because it describes the text and it gives you more power to implement css. if you change from the chicago manual of style to the mla style guide, you can simply redefine the style of <cite>, and such is an elegant solution.
however, on a forum like ttf, i think that < i >, < b >, and < u > have a place. maybe a poster wants to emphasize some text, and she likes emphasizing with an underline. well she doesn't have access to ttf's css, so she can't define the style of < em > to be underlined.
because each poster has their own way in which they want to typeset their post, explicit styling tags are best.
so what do you guys think about < i > and < b > versus < em > and < strong > ?
--
ultimately, i think that using < em > and < strong > tags is a better practice. likewise, use <cite> for a book name instead of < i >, because it describes the text and it gives you more power to implement css. if you change from the chicago manual of style to the mla style guide, you can simply redefine the style of <cite>, and such is an elegant solution.
however, on a forum like ttf, i think that < i >, < b >, and < u > have a place. maybe a poster wants to emphasize some text, and she likes emphasizing with an underline. well she doesn't have access to ttf's css, so she can't define the style of < em > to be underlined.
because each poster has their own way in which they want to typeset their post, explicit styling tags are best.
why not just implement all of the tags here and let users decide which among them they use? no sense talking about style guides when we've got a perfectly good spec!
I've always thought you should implement <code><em></code> and <code><strong></code>.
And <code>.
And <code>.
I like the simplicity of the current system. Also it's more friendly for people like me, who wonder what the fuck an em tag is supposed to do.
Then again pretty much all of the users here are more computer savvy than I am.
Then again pretty much all of the users here are more computer savvy than I am.
> I've always thought you should implement <code><em></code> and <code><strong></code>.
what about my argument?
what about my argument?
Personally, I agree that both of each pair should be available - <em> for people who explicitly want to show emphasis, < i> for people who actually intend italics (or aren't aware of <em>), and likewise for <strong> vs < b>.
you just earned yourself an admin edit. :)
this post has been archived.
picking and choosing is TYRANNICAL
b, i, and u are fine.
exactly. it's a web forum. it should be up to the poster to decide how they want to render what they're typing. using a style manual or something would be cool I guess, but it just seems like more than is necessary. and personally, if you made some style choice I didn't like, I'd just keep using b, i, and u to format my posts how I want them to be formatted.
maybe a poster wants to emphasize some text, and she likes emphasizing with an underline. well she doesn't have access to ttf's css, so she can't define the style of < em > to be underlined.
exactly. it's a web forum. it should be up to the poster to decide how they want to render what they're typing. using a style manual or something would be cool I guess, but it just seems like more than is necessary. and personally, if you made some style choice I didn't like, I'd just keep using b, i, and u to format my posts how I want them to be formatted.
from the other thread:
this makes no sense. using em is dictating how something with emphasis is shown. supporting the single-letter tags leaves it up to the poster.
given that it's often considered more correct to use <em> when emphasis is needed, rather than essentially dictating that the emphasized content must be italic (bonus hypocrisy in that sentence)?
this makes no sense. using em is dictating how something with emphasis is shown. supporting the single-letter tags leaves it up to the poster.
unless I'm missing the point.
< b> and < i> are visual. <strong> and <em> are semantic.
It makes more sense because it actually describes text instead of describing the visual style of the text; That's what CSS is for and not HTML.
< b> and < i> should be deprecated in HTML5. it's lint leftover from the "old days".
It makes more sense because it actually describes text instead of describing the visual style of the text; That's what CSS is for and not HTML.
< b> and < i> should be deprecated in HTML5. it's lint leftover from the "old days".
yeah except we're making forum posts here, not designing a website.
> yeah except we're making forum posts here, not designing a website.
boom, nailed it
boom, nailed it
Mm, I definitely agree that <b > and <i > shouldn't be removed, just that <em > and <strong > should also be available.
> yeah except we're making forum posts here, not designing a website.
In that case it "should" use bbcode, not html ...
In that case it "should" use bbcode, not html ...
why
i prefer textile over bbcode anyway
Because almost any other forum explicitly disallows/filters html and uses bbcode.
> Because almost any other forum explicitly disallows/filters html and uses bbcode.
i just don't think this is the metric against which modifications to ttf are measured
i just don't think this is the metric against which modifications to ttf are measured