Comments on: I’m an HTML Tag Criminal http://www.divideandconquer.se/2009/06/02/im-an-html-tag-criminal/ David's Software Development Blog Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:38:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Carl Ådahl http://www.divideandconquer.se/2009/06/02/im-an-html-tag-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Carl Ådahl Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:46:04 +0000 http://www.divideandconquer.se/?p=443#comment-368 Fixed post: If the presentation is up to CSS, why did they simply rename "b" and "i" using two even more confusing names? I understand that the new names are meant to be more generic and vague… but while "strong" is passable, "em" is merely cryptic and has to be looked up. Apparently it means “emphasis” which, by the way, is a noun and not an adjective. Further googling reveals that "strong" really means “strong emphasis”… So "em" = emphasis level 1 and "strong" = emphasis level 2 Why not use a similar pattern to the one used for headings? "em1", "em2", etc. Fixed post:

If the presentation is up to CSS, why did they simply rename “b” and “i” using two even more confusing names?

I understand that the new names are meant to be more generic and vague… but while “strong” is passable, “em” is merely cryptic and has to be looked up. Apparently it means “emphasis” which, by the way, is a noun and not an adjective. Further googling reveals that “strong” really means “strong emphasis”…

So “em” = emphasis level 1
and “strong” = emphasis level 2

Why not use a similar pattern to the one used for headings? “em1″, “em2″, etc.

]]> By: Carl Ådahl http://www.divideandconquer.se/2009/06/02/im-an-html-tag-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-367 Carl Ådahl Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:44:01 +0000 http://www.divideandconquer.se/?p=443#comment-367 Oh brilliant. It swallowed my tags. Oh brilliant. It swallowed my tags.

]]> By: Carl Ådahl http://www.divideandconquer.se/2009/06/02/im-an-html-tag-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-366 Carl Ådahl Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:43:35 +0000 http://www.divideandconquer.se/?p=443#comment-366 Ugh. But it's still a mess. If the presentation is up to CSS, why did they simply rename <b> and <i> using two even more confusing names? I understand that the new names are meant to be more generic and vague... but while <strong> is passable <em> is merely cryptic and has to be looked up. Apparently it means "emphasis" which, by the way, is a noun and not an adjective. Further googling reveals that <strong> means "strong emphasis"... So <em> = emphasis level 1 and <strong> = emphasis level 2 Why not use a similar pattern to the one used for headings? , etc. (I know you're not the W3C, just venting. :) Ugh. But it’s still a mess. If the presentation is up to CSS, why did they simply rename and using two even more confusing names?

I understand that the new names are meant to be more generic and vague… but while is passable is merely cryptic and has to be looked up. Apparently it means “emphasis” which, by the way, is a noun and not an adjective. Further googling reveals that means “strong emphasis”…

So = emphasis level 1
and = emphasis level 2

Why not use a similar pattern to the one used for headings? , etc.

(I know you’re not the W3C, just venting. :)

]]>