HTML semantics pendantry


  • BINNED

    Continuing the discussion from Radio WTF Presents: Quantity of Service:

    @ben_lubar said:

    *foo* and _foo_ aren't italics, they're <em>phasis.
    Similarly, **foo** and __foo__ aren't bold, they're <strong>er emphasis.

    Yes, I used the inspector to check.

    I don't think the original authors of this back in the yonder years though about that, but damn it, he's right...


  • SockDev

    Pendandtic, yes.
    Dickweedy, no.

    FLAG_DENIED


  • BINNED

    @RaceProUK said:

    Dickweedy, no.

    Disagree. Who but a dickweed would find it necessary to point out not only which HTML tags the cooked post uses but also go into the semantic web discussion after all people wanted is to make bold text?


  • SockDev

    Ah, but dickweedery means that not only do you correct someone, but you go to great lengths to do so. Simply pointing out a technicality doesn't cut it :stuck_out_tongue:



  • Agreed. Flagged accordingly. :checkered_flag:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Onyx said:

    Yes, I used the inspector to check.

    Well given these used to be

    • *bold*
    • /italic/
    • _underline_

    (i.e. what Remy, and quite a few others, are used to)

    anything that Discourse Markdown decides to reinterpret doesn't really count in this context.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    They still are if you're using Confluence (or JIRA, which uses the Confluence rendering engine in a bunch of places).

    [Edit]: No, I'm wrong. The bastards keep changing it.


  • BINNED

    @PJH said:

    anything that Discourse Markdown decides to reinterpret doesn't really count in this context.

    I agree in the sense that all the user want is bold or italic, which is why I consider going into HTML semantics pedantic dickweedery.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    User 1: When I was a lad this was *bold*, and that's what I'm used to
    User 2: <non-sequiteur, and change of subject, about how user 1 is wrong because it means *emphasis* in markdown>

    How can you be a pedant about something someone said, when you simply ignore what they said and say they're wrong, perhaps, about what you thought they said?


  • BINNED

    Emphasis and strong emphasis are still, traditionally, and by default in any browser (that can render such cases properly, you pendants, links will have issues, yes), represented by italic and bold respectively.

    I didn't see that as pointing out that User 1 is wrong for that reason; rather it was bringing up technical implementation details of how bold and italic are displayed and it's semantic meaning as well.



  • @Onyx said:

    represented by italic and bold respectively.

    Yeah, whatever markup was used, I don't care. What I see is italics and bold. It's an implementation detail about less likely to change than #define ZERO 0.



  • @Onyx said:

    any browser (that can render such cases properly, you pendants, links will have issues, yes), represented by italic and bold respectively.

    links actually does a pretty good job, given the options it has.

    I prefer the text mode rendering

    over the graphical mode rendering

    though.

    Source file:

    <html>
    <head><title>Links emphasis test</title></head>
    <body>
    This is <em>emphasized</em>.<br />
    This is <strong>strong</strong>.
    </body>
    </html>
    

  • mod

    @PJH said:

    User 1: When I was a lad this was bold, and that's what I'm used toUser 2: <non-sequiteur, and change of subject, about how user 1 is wrong because it means emphasis in markdown>

    How can you be a pedant about something someone said, when you simply ignore what they said and say they're wrong, perhaps, about what you thought they said?

    I agree with @PJH on this one.

    FLAG_DENIED



  • This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.