Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #39933

Re: html style

Path	csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: html style
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2023 16:04:09 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	36
Message-ID	<tut8bv$11ddk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<d968b927-09de-4e98-818b-0a834ad8038cn@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Injection-Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:04:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info	reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b48ef0a0c86bfd335c1b5581f4f0e481"; logging-data="1095092"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18v89FKaoQgEMwchoRuP+EikAEtz+F8V9g="
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Cancel-Lock	sha1:4BYpzvsYDOPAUnwFDDmkTB04hQo=
In-Reply-To	<d968b927-09de-4e98-818b-0a834ad8038cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language	en-US
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:39933

Show key headers only | View raw

On 3/15/2023 2:29 PM, e.d.pro...@gmail.com wrote:
> Granted this has nothing to do with Java, other than the warning in
> eclipse on my jsp, but I wanted to get some opinions. What is best
> for writing html styling these days? I got a warning on a <u> tag
> stating it's deprecated. The browser converts this to
> style="text-decoration: underline;". There is no replacement tag to
> do the same thing. The old <i> tag converts to style="font-style:
> italic;". The <em> tag does the exact same thing. The old <b> tag
> converts to style="font-weight: bold;". The <strong> tag does the
> exact same thing. The <i> and <b> tags aren't giving warnings, just
> code smells. Apparently the team responsible for maintaining html
> definitions decided emphasis was clearer than italic and strong was
> clearer than bold, though they serve the same function, and literally
> nothing on the web needs to be underlined anymore aside from <a>
> tag. They still use the <u> tag on this doc page:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_attributes/accesskey
>
>  Whether you agree with the html team or not, replacing all <i> and
> <b> references with <em> and <strong> seems trivial, but with the
> only drop in replacement for <u> being a style property, do we even
> bother writing <em> and <strong> or literally put everything in
> another tag such as <div> or <span> and do all of these with css
> classes?
> 
> One use case I found in <u> for an application I'm maintaining was
> documentation, for emphasis, such as "... <u>new</u> records...".
> While it does make sense to me to change that to <em> (or is that a
> strong?), we can't change it if the customer prefers underlining.

My opinion:
- stay away from all of these old tags
- use div, p and span with class
- let the visual designers do the CSS that define what those classes do

Arne

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

html style "e.d.pro...@gmail.com" <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2023-03-15 11:29 -0700
  Re: html style Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2023-03-15 16:04 -0400

csiph-web