-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20 Jul 2003 02:39, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 02:18:30AM +0200, Timwi wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
- using <i> not <em> 319 bytes saved
- using <b> not <strong> 1219 bytes saved
<em> and <strong> should be used, not <i> and <b>. The reasons are complicated and have to do with accessibility and text browsers. I don't really understand those reasons myself, but from my experience it seems to be consensus to use <em> and <strong>. I think <i> and <b> are even deprecated in the newest version of HTML, or something...
Wasting bytes where it's critical to make RC as small as possible for "complicated reasons" doesn't really convince me.
OK, I'll have a stab at this: the original concept of the <I> and <B> tags were to make the text they encapsulated italicised and emboldened, respectively. This is obviously a Bad Thing, as it implicitly promotes the (false) concept that HTML is a print mark-up language, as opposed to a text mark-up language, for display, printing, being read aloud, being encoded into light pulses, etc. This isn't really 'complicated' per se, it just requires people to understand the underlying philosophy of HTML.
And a far more useful byte-stripper would be to install mod_gzip (or is this being used already?).
And no, they're not deprecated in HTML 4.01.
To quote: "[These] elements specify font information. Although they are not [...] deprecated, their use is discouraged in favour of style sheets."
So, they are "something" similar to deprecated.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester mailto:jon@eh.org | mailto:csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk mailto:jamesdforrester@hotmail.com | mailto:james@jdforrester.org