Re: Debian WWW CVS: peterk
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:20:52AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> > How exactly is <b> evil?
>
> It is visual markup, in contrast to <strong> which is logical.
Strong or bold, doesn't seem to make much difference to me...
> And <b> is depreciated in HTML 4.0, which we supposedly following.
Do you have an exact reference to that part of the specification (e.g. URL)?
> > You should have just replaced it with <blockquote>, that would make the same
> > effect, although it would indent the right-hand side, too.
>
> Oh, you were using it to indent something? I didn't notice, I just saw an
> illegal <ul> and removed it. I didn't know it could be abused to indent
> stuff.
Yes. It can.
> BTW, <blockquote> isn't the same thing as indentation, to indent stuff you
> need CSS (something like <dl style="margin-left: 2em">), there is nothing
> like indentation in HTML, <blockquote> means that it is a block of quoted
> text, which I didn't see any of in the page.
No, Netscape (and I.E. IIRC) displays <blockquote> as text indented on both
sides.
> > Also, adding <P>\n still makes weblint/tidy barf, IIRC...
>
> Then it's broken. I usually try to minimize the changes in CVS, and thus
> adding a <P> on its own rather than changing a whole line to start with a
> <P> and possibly reformatting the whole paragraph of text is much better.
Yeah...
> > /me notes HTML is rather lame
>
> Only if used incorrectly. HTML with CSS is quite a powerful presentation
> language.
IME you have to do some dirty trickery to get your pages to display the way
you want them, with plain HTML. And even then, you can never be sure
everyone will see it correctly. Sucks.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: