Comment by captn3m0

1 day ago

> Prior to HTML5, this was called a definition list. This is because the <dl> was originally only intended to represent glossaries of terms and their definitions.

TIL I’ve been naming it wrong for a decade.

21 comments

captn3m0

Reply
sunshowers  1 day ago

Bleh. <b> is apparently now bring attention to. As if.

  • extra88  1 day ago

    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...

    • pocksuppet  5 hours ago

      The entire purpose of an element like <b> is what it looks like. If we're being inclusive, then the entire purpose of an element like <b> is what it looks like, how it sounds, how it feels in Braille, and so on. Nothing more. It does not map to some abstract concept.

      It should be defined as: When rendered on a visual display device supporting bold font, it makes the text bold. The specific behavior is not guaranteed and may vary based on the user-agent. For example, screen readers will pronounce the text with emphasis.

      1 reply →

Ancapistani  1 day ago

You’re not alone. This is the second time this week I’ve seen that, and thought it was a mistake the first time.

xp84  1 day ago

I don’t want to check what year html5 was standardized because I think it may be north of a decade ;)