Pages:1
strong vs bold(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Veinman
In HTML-
Is the strong tag deprecated, or is the b tag deprecated?
I always thought b was the accepted one to use, but I still see strong being used a lot.
Posted by: Kingtut
I think |Strong| seems to be the 'code du jour' these days. Certainly, Dreamweaver inserts that in the code, when the Bold attribute is selected.
Posted by: UnnDunn
quote:
Originally posted by Veinman
In HTML-
Is the strong tag deprecated, or is the b tag deprecated?
I always thought b was the accepted one to use, but I still see strong being used a lot.
Bold is deprecated, or at least, heavily frowned upon by the W3C.
Whenever you have these kinds of questions, it's always the tag that directly controls the format of the element which is deprecated. Ideally, there should be no formatting tags whatsoever - only structure tags.
B, I, U, FONT, CENTER, etc. are formatting tags.
STRONG, EM, ADDRESS, CITE, BLOCKQUOTE, etc. are structural tags.
Posted by: Veinman
Hmm, I guess I don't see much difference in calling Strong a structure tag, since the end result is exactly the same as bold.
But if strong is how things are going, then I'll switch. I usually use css anyway, but sometimes throwing a b tag in there is nice and quick.
Posted by: smeerkat
quote:
Originally posted by Veinman
Hmm, I guess I don't see much difference in calling Strong a structure tag, since the end result is exactly the same as bold.
agreed.
Anyways, I usually create a class called 'bold' so I can throw in a <p> or <span> tag where needed.
Posted by: UnnDunn
quote:
Originally posted by Veinman
Hmm, I guess I don't see much difference in calling Strong a structure tag, since the end result is exactly the same as bold.
But if strong is how things are going, then I'll switch. I usually use css anyway, but sometimes throwing a b tag in there is nice and quick.
Think of it this way: BOLD only really makes sense if you're reading the content, because it is a 'visual' tag. It is expected to make text bold; that's all it does.
STRONG is neutral. It doesn't necessarily mean 'bold'. It can be whatever you or the viewer wants it to be. STRONG means 'strong emphasis', so how would you 'strongly emphasize' a piece of text? You could change its color, make it bigger, use small-caps, etc. What if a screen-reader were reading it? You could deepen the voice used, or make it louder. What if it were being printed out? You could make the text 'bold' instead of changing its color. What if it's a text-only browser that can't do bold? Or a cellphone with a tiny screen? Or a Braille browser? Etc. etc. etc.
It's about adaptability and flexibility. STRONG (and other structure tags) are flexible, because they don't specify how the text should be formatted. B (and other formatting tags) are inflexible, because they do.
Posted by: Veinman
Makes sense.
I would like to beat the hell out of the originators of HTML though. They did a fair job, but they didn't think far enough ahead.
Posted by: Dale
I still use code:
<b>Bold</b>
|
|
