Hi Ash, I want to clarify a couple points. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Ashley Sheridan <ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 13:46 -0400, Adam Richardson wrote: > > Hi Tedd, > > How's it going? I'm very pleased with the emphasis on accessibility you > bring to the PHP list, but I do believe you're overstating a few points > below. > [Omitted for brevity] > > I've read this thread right through and I have to agree with Tedd. The new > HTML5 spec might say it's fine to use <b> and <i> now for certain cases, but > I still would use <strong> and <em> for the majority of those and other > markup where else I could. > I posted because Ted said "First, never use <B> -- or <I> for that matter." My objection was to that specific statement. I don't think the spec says it is "fine to use <b> and <i> for certain", but rather it points out appropriate uses of the tags given the (X)HTML5 spec. > Consider the example which started this thread. It was merely to make part > of a name bold. Here is how I probably would have marked it up to give it a > semantic meaning: > > <span class="name">John <span class="surname">Smith</span></span> > We're not in disagreement here. I specifically pointed out that "You could choose to use a span tag" in my example. Such would be perfectly acceptable. The spec even says: The b <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-element> element > should be used as a last resort when no other element is more appropriate. > In particular, headings should use the h1<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements> > to h6<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements> elements, > stress emphasis should use theem<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-em-element> element, > importance should be denoted with the strong<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-strong-element> element, > and text marked or highlighted should use the mark<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-mark-element> > element. There's a similar caveat for the <i> tag, too. That said, if I was going to add the semantics you suggested, I'd probably use the hCard standard to facilitate the acquisition of this meta information: <div id="hcard-John-Robert-Smith" class="vcard"> <span class="fn n"> <span class="given-name">John</span> <span class="additional-name">Robert</span> <span class="family-name">Smith</span> </span> </div> But it's here that we diverge I believe, as I believe that if I've exhausted the alternatives, as in the case of the examples included in the spec, one can appropriately use a <b> tag. And, I also see appropriate uses for the <i> tag in light of the spec. > Easy to style however I wanted, easy to read the code and infer the > meaning, and I believe there are things out there which digest content and > make rudimentary attempts to decipher the meaning from simple classes such > as these. In-fact, it was from simple class definitions like these that led > to the creation of the new tags in HTML5 such as <footer> and <nav>. > Absolutely right! Class names are very helpful. The spec even points out for the <i> that: Authors can use the class<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#classes> attribute > on the i <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element> element > to identify why the element is being used, so that if the style of a > particular use (e.g. dream sequences as opposed to taxonomic terms) is to be > changed at a later date, the author doesn't have to go through the entire > document (or series of related documents) annotating each use. And, I would also point out that it was these same classes that you noted for footers and navs that lead to the change in the <b> and <i> tags. I feel it's only a matter of time before more tags are added to the mix > (within limits of course, we don't want to remember a list of a million tags > every time we fire up our editors to create something!) to make things even > more semantic. For me, accessibility is only a hop away from semantics, so I > try to avoid what I consider "bad" markup wherever I can. Although, as > others have said, what is bad is largely, in part, down to user preference. > I agree. That said, it sounds like we might differ in the perceived value of the <b> and <i> tags for semantics and accessibility. When I read the (X)HTML5 spec, especially for the <i> tag (see quoted text below), I see great hope for improving the user experience of those using text-to-speech software. I hear the speaker using different styles of speech to reflect <em> tags, <strong> tags, AND <i> tags in ways that make me excited for the future of accessibility. That is why I believe there are times for the appropriate use of <b> and <i> tags. The i <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element> element > represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#represents> a span > of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal > prose in a manner indicating a different quality of text, such as a > taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another > language, a thought, or a ship name in Western texts. I'll sign off on this thread, sorry to trouble the list with such thick posts. Adam -- Nephtali: A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework http://nephtaliproject.com
