Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Order and placement of tags

Reply
Thread Tools

Order and placement of tags

 
 
Joel Shepherd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-07-2003
EightNineThree wrote:
> "Joel Shepherd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:EjL6b.2711$(E-Mail Removed) k.net...
>
>> EightNineThree wrote:
>>
>> As has been discussed elsewhere (CIWAS for one), <i> and <b> have
>> legitimate uses which do not include emphasis.

>
> What possible purposes could <b> have?


Here's the thread, which deals primarily with <i>, if anyone's interested:

<http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=Xns93B9937ABBC09rock13com%4024.48.107.54 &rnum=1&prev=/&frame=on>

For <b> ... Had to think about that. One example might be in a
reference document about a programming. One common convention is for
reserved words to be presented in bold. The argument -- identical to
the one in the thread above -- is that the bolding the word *is*
semantically important, as it denotes keyword usage. "for", as in "for
(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)", is very different from "for pete's sake,
stop cracking your knuckles!" "For foreach is frequently preferred to
for for foreach can take advantage of an optimized iterator
implementation." To make any sense of that, you need to know that
second "for" is a language keyword: it's a semantically important bit
of text.

> Just plain old fat text - in which case, CSS is more appropriate.


But you do need to ask *why* the text is fat, not to mention plain and
old.

The problem with <span> in this case is that <span> simply denotes
"this is inline data". <i> and <b> are not much better, except they
can indicate "this data is semantically significant but there is no
adequate markup for it".

All that said ... I just reread the HTML spec on <span> and was
surprised to see:

"Since HTML does not include elements that identify objects such as
"client", "telephone number", "email address", etc., we use DIV and
SPAN to achieve the desired structural and presentational effects."

That -- using span and div to achieve "structural", as in semantically
significant, effects -- is news to me.

Too bad the spec doesn't offer similar commentary for <b> and <i>. But
I stand by my argument above.

--
Joel.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2003
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:53:24 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Here's an example of what I do:
>>

>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ory=20114&rd=1
>>
>> As I stated in another post, I only use HTML to prepare eBay ads. An
>> eBay ad has a shelf life of 7 days, it has to be concise and present
>> the information so the viewer takes it all in at once, and it
>> shouldn't be distracting in either layout or content. Simple is best.

>
>Simple is always best, regardless of the purpose of the page.
>Therefore, <h1> is more simple, more correct, and even less effort than
><font size=6>


So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
is a few keystrokes shorter?

>Since you create so many of these, and do them so often, you'd be best
>advised to learn how to make it right.


Watch my lips. I use a couple of templates and just change a few
items.

I note that you say I don't do it "right", but can't find anything to
say that is wrong.

>> The other post said that tables work best for what I do. I set up a
>> template, pop the appropriate image (with the image done to the same
>> dimensions (480 px wide by x high) for one, and 480 by 200 for the
>> smaller one) in the appropriate row and data, change a bit of copy in
>> one data place, and use boilerplate in the second. Each ad has the
>> same appearance.

>
>"Tables work best" when it is only tables that you (barely) know.


Yep. You'd like to say they don't work, but you can't find anything
that doesn't get the job done. You're just hand-waving.

><h1> says: "This is the primary heading for this document"


And the benefit is.....? You were confused by the lack of a
designated primary heading in an ad that fits on a single screen?

><font size=6> says: "These are some really big words"


No, it says this is a larger font size than <font size= 3>. Works as
well on short words as it does on big words.


>> >6. <font size=3> is the default size of text anyway, so why bother

>bloating
>> >the markup with it?

>>
>> Bloat with 40 lines?

>
>Yes.
>
>
>> >7. The <blockquote> has a purpose, although I'm sure you're abusing it to
>> >indent text.

>>
>> It works. I don't know of a different way. It shortens the text
>> line, makes the copy more readable, and gives me margins. If there's
>> a better way, with a "why" attached", I'll try it.

>
><p style="margin: 35px"> does the same thing and it is structurally correct.


You're good at this? You think? <blockquote> formats until
</blockquote>. Your suggestion has to be repeated each paragraph.
You just got through whining about bloat, and you want to add a line
for each paragraph?

>In fact, the effect you're trying to create (using the example above) would
>probably be best handled by padding.


Yeah, I could. I could use six, or I could use half-a-dozen.

Look....I don't want to come in here and get into an argument when all
I wanted was an answer to a simple question. This is your turf, not
mine. But, you started out in full asshole mode, you haven't offered
a suggestion that's worth anything (except two ways to make type look
big), what you have offered is inconsistent, and you make vague
hand-waving statements like "structurally correct". Why do you
bother?




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
EightNineThree
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2003

"Tony Cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:53:24 -0400, "EightNineThree"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> Here's an example of what I do:
> >>

>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...&category=2011

4&rd=1
> >>
> >> As I stated in another post, I only use HTML to prepare eBay ads. An
> >> eBay ad has a shelf life of 7 days, it has to be concise and present
> >> the information so the viewer takes it all in at once, and it
> >> shouldn't be distracting in either layout or content. Simple is best.

> >
> >Simple is always best, regardless of the purpose of the page.
> >Therefore, <h1> is more simple, more correct, and even less effort than
> ><font size=6>

>
> So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
> type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
> is a few keystrokes shorter?


My high paid day job revolves around more than hocking silverware on EBay,
you can bet on that.
I manage the online corporate identity and e-commerce efforts of one of the
largest credit unions in the United States.

You must be confused about your role in this exchange.
You've come to this newsgroup to ask a question about HTML.
You've gotten information about how to author correct HTML.
If you do not want correct information, but would rather use hackish
workarounds, then go back to using your apparent trial-and-error method of
learning.

Some people care about doing things the right way. It is quite apparent that
you do not fit that description.


--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2003
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 21:07:48 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
>> type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
>> is a few keystrokes shorter?

>
>My high paid day job revolves around more than hocking silverware on EBay,
>you can bet on that.


Nor does mine. I'm selling things I've inherited from three
generations of pack rats and antique collectors. I've given my
married children what they want, and I'm having an "on-line garage
sale" to clear out the rest.

>I manage the online corporate identity and e-commerce efforts of one of the
>largest credit unions in the United States.


How come you don't give out toasters any more? That e-commerce
thing....spam? You work for a Nigerian credit union?

>You must be confused about your role in this exchange.
>You've come to this newsgroup to ask a question about HTML.
>You've gotten information about how to author correct HTML.


Not from you. I did receive some help, but if you were capable of it
you managed to conceal it.

>If you do not want correct information, but would rather use hackish
>workarounds, then go back to using your apparent trial-and-error method of
>learning.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still noted is that the only hackish error you
could find is not using Big Type On The Screen, Alternate #2.

>Some people care about doing things the right way. It is quite apparent that
>you do not fit that description.


Some people have something useful to offer, and some people just strut
around saying nothing like it means something.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Morris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2003
Joel Shepherd <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> For <b> ... Had to think about that. One example might be in a
> reference document about a programming. One common convention is for
> reserved words to be presented in bold. The argument -- identical to
> the one in the thread above -- is that the bolding the word *is*
> semantically important, as it denotes keyword usage. "for", as in "for
> (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)", is very different from "for pete's sake,
> stop cracking your knuckles!" "For foreach is frequently preferred to
> for for foreach can take advantage of an optimized iterator
> implementation." To make any sense of that, you need to know that
> second "for" is a language keyword: it's a semantically important bit
> of text.


Yes, though I wouldn't use <b> for that.

For <code>foreach</code> is frequently preferred to <code>for</code>
for <code>foreach</code> can ...

Actually, I think my preferred solution would be to reword the
sentence so that it made more sense anyway. Neither <b> nor <code> is
guaranteed to be displayed differently, after all. IMO, if the text
alone isn't clear, adding markup to clarify it doesn't solve the
problem, it just masks it for some users.

<code><b>for</b> (;</code> I think is a good way of doing syntax
highlighting, though. Given that this sort of thing may often be
viewed in text mode (anyone know a CSS-capable text browser - I
haven't found one yet), I think I prefer <b> to <span
style="font-weight: bold;"> (or id/class equivalents).

--
Chris
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
All style tags after the first 30 style tags on an HTML page are not applied in Internet Explorer Rob Nicholson ASP .Net 3 05-28-2005 03:11 PM
Evaluating struts tags inside my own custom tags... A. Brinkmann Java 2 04-16-2004 07:44 AM
JSP newbie - use include, custom tags, standard tags - or what? Mike Java 3 01-09-2004 09:30 AM
RegEx to find CFML tags nested in HTML tags Dean H. Saxe Perl 0 01-03-2004 06:11 PM
Custom Tags within Custom Tags. Ranganath Java 2 10-21-2003 06:14 AM



Advertisments