Ruby on Rails

Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> Bill Walton wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Greg Donald <gdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
>>> <lists@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>>>> I didn't say it was invalid HTML. �I said it was *bad practice*.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's why it's in the spec, 'cause no one should use it.
>>>
>>> /rolls eyes
>>
>> +1. If only marnen were in charge.... ;-)
>
> The HTML 5 spec itself says <b> is only to be used as a last resort if
> no other element is more appropriate. IMHO, that's never the case: even
> if nothing more specific can be found, <span> is more appropriate than
> <b>.

I have to agree with Marnen. Are we criticizing people for emphasizing
exactly what the HTML5 spec states now?

I agree that <b> is maintained in the spec solely for backward
compatibility. I see no use case for a "proper" use of <b>. That tag
suggests too specific a styling (boldened). As recommended by the spec
<strong>, <em> or <mark> are more appropriate in most cases.

Here is the <strong>incorrect</strong> example presented in the spec:

<p><b>WARNING!</b> Do not frob the barbinator!</p>

In the above case the appropriate tag would be <strong> not <b>.

The <strong> tag suggests "WARNING!" should be presented "strongly"
without specifically suggesting "boldened." That may mean, "Display
WARNING! in yellow (and bold too)."
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.