upvote
Bleh. <b> is apparently now bring attention to. As if.
reply
deleted
reply
Eh, it's fine, elements should be defined for what they mean, not what they look like. The explanation and distinctions made between <b> and other elements (<i>, <em>, <strong>) make sense.

The suggested (not obligatory) user agent styling for <b> is `font-weight: bolder` an agent or authors could use lots of different things to bring attention to what the element contains and treat it differently from <strong>.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics....

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#phrasi...

reply
I write most of my content in markdown or asciidoc and I don't pay attention to whether it's b or strong :)
reply
In practice today, that's fine. Typically authors have a hard time differentiating what "emphasis," "importance," and "bring attention to" mean to them. Therefore, nothing conveys a distinction by default.
reply
So then what's the point of making this distinction? I would like to see surveys of how many people actually author content in forms that differentiate between b and strong.
reply
What, you don't know what's the difference between "emphasis" and "bringing attention to"? Shame on you, shame on you: you're unworthy to write HTML.

The difference, of course, is that one is a Latin word, and the other is an English phrase with the same meaning. But they're different words, so different tags. It's all completely rational and logical, and if you don't see the logic and/or reason, well: you're unworthy to write HTML. See Figure 1.

P.S. I love this ancient "see figure 1" meme. It's originated in the early 80s, and still as relevant as ever, and probably will be forever.

    Please stop submitting SPR's.  This is our system.  We designed
    it, we built it, and we use it more than you do.  If there are some
    features you think might be missing, if the system isn't as effective
    as you think it could be, TOUGH!  Give it back, we don't need you.
    See figure 1.

   ---------------------------
   !            -            !
   !           { }           !
   !           | |           !
   !           | |           !
   !        .-.! !.-.        !
   !      .-!  ! !  !.-.     !
   !      ! !       !  ;     !
   !      \           ;      !
   !       \         ;       !
   !        !       :        !
   !        !       |        !
   !        |       |        !
   !                         !
   ---------------------------
      Figure 1.
reply
You’re not alone. This is the second time this week I’ve seen that, and thought it was a mistake the first time.
reply
I don’t want to check what year html5 was standardized because I think it may be north of a decade ;)
reply
> I think it may be north of a decade

Nearly two!

reply
I was better off not knowing that this morning. Might be worth prefixing that tidbit of info with “trigger warning: the unrelenting passage of time”.
reply
There exist toddlers who were raised on Teletubbies that are now members of Congress
reply
I’m going to have to politely request that you stop this immediately.
reply
TIL The name was changed from a definition list.
reply
Same here. I like definition list better ;-)
reply