Even though everything in this lists are all still valid and compliant in HTML standards, they are rather presentational and not meaningful.
First, I list down the Tags:
iboldusmallhrcenterfont
Second, I list down the Attributes:
aligntargetname
Can someone please enlighten me why YOU as a modern web designer / developer still using these presentational approaches? I just don’t get it. Or maybe it’s the easiest way to achieve the end result in such way.
I have to agree with you but lets consider thing in a different situation. Most of the deprecated element can be mimicked through use of CSS but what happen when someone browse the page without CSS enabled? If these elements were took out because of CSS implementation, we don’t need strong, em, h1-h6, code, pre and etc (all this can be done with CSS and a load of SPAN. I do understand why i, bold and font were deprecated but some useful element such as u and hr are quiet useful especially when presenting a website without CSS support, heck I do still get visit from lynx user (text based browser).
Reply
crynobone, I truly understand why horizontal rule (
hr) is still widely use. Mostly people use hr to divide block between main section (header, content, footer).But as far as I’m concern, this is unacceptable for
u. If you useuto underline any element, people will misunderstood it either with link underlines and insert (ins).Reply
If we consider the look of all three maybe but all three doesn’t represent the same meaning. STRONG conflicted with B, I with EM, FONT with SPAN but U, A and INS only conflicted based on the look of it but not what it represent. Even A and INS doesn’t mean the same thing, don’t we have to deprecate INS as well.
I would consider Bold, Italic and Underline is a method to highlight text in writing but if U were deprecated because it’s look may confuse people that a lame reason (in my opinion).
Reply
If you’re teaching bunch of student about basic HTML. And you ask them what’s the different of these: insertion
deletionstrike. Can you tell it by a glimpse?It may have some impact to the whole accessibility and usability of the page. So if you think “confusing” user is a consider lame, then I have nothing to say.
Reply
Same thing can be applied if you shown a student someword. Can the student tell it apart without looking into the code.
Reply
Seriously I don’t get you and I lost for word. Still disagree that you’re saying my reasoning of confusing user between u, insertion or linked text is lame.
I’m talking presentational FREE and deprecated elements. This is what this entry all about.
Reply
I’m saying that IF the ONE WHOM MADE THE STANDARD deprecated those element MERELY because in a presentation way it LOOK the same (but what it present/it’s function aren’t) it a lame reason to do so. In fact they should consider step preventing U and INS using a different style, A have different color by default. It’s LAME because the way I see it, they can opt to differentiate those element.
Again I’m saying that there are LAME IF the only reason those element are deprecated because they looked the same (using the same style) BUT if there other reason to it which I don’t know of then it’s a different case.
Reply
I never pointed anything to you Zeo unless your the one whom responsible in making the standard.
Reply
lol.
i wrote such a long article on this, back at my work place, last friday i think.
then i thought, “what the heck, i shouldnt be posting comments while working”
i first thought, it was such a sweet post i could have joined discussing along. but reading the comments.
lol.
Reply
loop, if you got something to say just shoot. No need for unnecessary comment. And are you that good saying “lol” at other people’s opinion?
Reply
Modern? I don’t really agree on this.
Currently many web designer start to move back to HTML rather than using XHTML. Go to http://www.456bereastreet.com/ there is a few people supporting HTML.
Reply
could it be that they are just lazy??
Reply
Zeo, I still don’t understand what you don’t like about “presentational”? Please elaborate.
Reply
websites are still visited mostly by human readers (disregarding the search engines), so the presentational approach is seen by some as usable… most web-designers are “designers”, not very concerned about tech. hence using these “old” tags as Zeo said is not forward compatible.
in fact, i think the efforts in standardizing web-source-codes into xhtml is good. as it goes along with the “semantic-web” efforts. i don’t think “presentational concerns” are on the “semantics” list. CSS, meant to style the “presentation-less” xhtml, is meant as a hybrid to bridge the divide between the two above arguments.
Zeo, if you remember being in school, a sylabus first starts with the errors or old and goes on to overlap it with “modern corrections”. for the students argument, i think teaching it first as presentational would be fine. THEN layer it on with the s***-load of corrections. but being revolutionary, one could jump straight into semantics…
Reply