Question about standards: I, EM, B, STRONG, BIG, SMALL

Question

In real work, I always use EM for italics, STRONG for choices. AND SMALL.

I decided to update my knowledge in HTML +, decided to look at HTML 5

So, xHTML 1.0 strict, as a language for separating flies and cutlets, allowed the following built-in elements associated with text:

I, EM, B, STRONG, BIG, SMALL

here I came across the first question: why have the B and I tags not been removed or at least not become obsolete in XHTML? In the end, if you look at DTD, then about tag B and I clearly say:

<! ELEMENT b% Inline;> <! - Bold font -> <! ELEMENT i% Inline;> <! - Italic font -> 

Is fat content and courses structural, logical? This is clearly a visual function.

Then I looked at http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp and was surprised that the BIG tag was somehow removed from HTML5 and its logical equivalent SMALL - left! Although BIG was even in XHTML 1.0 Strict!

Where is the logic in such a permutation? Explain.

Answer 1

Tags are used, such as i and small , which are not presentation, but semantic. <small> is a small print (or legal seal) and side comments. And i can be used for text that is traditionally italicized but not underlined, for example. book names, foreign words and Latin species names.

As to why <big> was dropped and <small> not, see this answer .

Answer 2

First of all, EM is not for italics, it is for EMPHASIS. STRONG - for special attention. You should never use them for any other purpose. Not compliant with HTML 4, XHTML, or HTML5 specifications.

For presentation effects, use CSS .

So why were B, I and SMALL saved in HTML5?

• To prevent abuse of EM and STRONG. If you cannot use CSS, for example, on a forum or a wiki, it is better to use non-semantic elements than to abuse semantic ones. As in our comments for Stackoverflow, where I suspect that they and the strong are being abused, thanks to the WYSIWYG editor used.

• There may be legitimate reasons to use bold or italics besides being covered by EM, STRONG, and DFN. HTML5 defines this as text that should sound in a different voice or mood, so it adds a kind of semantic and legitimate precedent. This slight redefinition is controversial.

• Instead of B and I, some software and / or users insert style attributes. It trades one evil for the worst.

• The same applies to SMALL. He received a similar use case, where he has a semantic meaning. He does NOT average lateral amounts.

BTW, B, and I are not deprecated in HTML 4 / XHTML 1.

Answer 3

Why have the B and I tags not been removed or at least not become obsolete in XHTML?

Nothing is deprecated in XHTML 1.0. It was designed to express HTML 4.01 in XML.

XHTML 1.1 only slightly changed it.

Then I looked at http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp

Not. Not W3Schools. Please no.

and was surprised that the BIG tag was somehow removed from HTML5, and its logical equivalent, SMALL, is left!

Semantics has been redefined . It will (if not changed before HTML5 becomes a recommendation) mean "side comments" and not "reduced font size".

Answer 4

Standards are more about politics than logical reasons.

Subscribe to any w3 mailing list (personal favorite public-html), sit back and enjoy (?) The reality soap.

Answer 5

I think that part of the answer about <big> and <small> can be found in the specification :

A small element is a side comment, such as a small print.

Note. A small print usually contains disclaimers, disclaimers, legal restrictions or copyrights. Small stamps are also sometimes used for attribution or to satisfy licensing requirements.

Thus, the semantics of <small> are basically “side comments” and “small print” (in the sense of disclaimer), which is encoded in HTML by an element called “small”. Maybe naming should be better, of course.

Answer 6

Why is <small> still in HTML5, but <big> isnt?

Id suggests that <small> still exists, because it is often used for side comments, bounce, etc. in practice, and there is no existing HTML element suitable for the task.

Ian Hickson tried to create HTML5 based on how HTML was used in practice: paving cows. Thus, there are places where logic sacrifices practicality. (As the WHATWG blog says : "Please leave your sense of logic at the door, thanks!" .

If users already use <small> for side comments and arent using <big> for anything meaningful (I say “if” because you have a lot of room for discussion and / or research on this), then why not consolidate common usage first in specification and removal of the last?

Why is <b> and <i> still in HTML5 if they are purely visual?

<b> and <i> have been redefined to make sense in HTML5, although its very light form of meaning:

• <i> : "spacing in alternative voice or mood"
• <b> : "a range of text that focuses on utilitarian goals"

Now they are general-purpose elements that will be used to distinguish between runs of text for reasons not specifically described by another tag.

Answer 7

I believe that Hickson should use “style” to resize the font without using those “big” and “small” tags.

To keep “small” and remove “big”, this is simply wrong.

Answer 8

Personally, I am pleased with this state - there are some conventions (semantics) around small print, and this tag works pretty well for it. If I said “read the fine print” in a conversation, it would make sense, but “read a large print” and you would think “what is a large print”? I am glad to see a big way out (never use it) and a little stay (use it often).

I personally do not use b, finding the strong costumes that I need. But there are times when you want the text to be in italics but not underlined. If this emphasizes, I use EM. If this is a quote, I use CITE. If this is another cursive agreement, I do not want to abuse EM or CITE.

Wikipedia has some notes on when to use italics, and you will find here a few notes about the various HTML tags that can be used with these examples: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Guide/italics# General_Examples

Feel free to discuss any or all of the examples. That was my hit. Some of them are simple (for example, the use of EM), others are somewhat ambiguous. I prefer to use italics rather than choosing (a) EM where it would be wrong, or (b) SPAN with italics in a font style that does not make sense.

The fact is that semantics are associated with the use of italic test (at least in English), and HTML does not contain custom elements to solve all problems and does not require imho. I am a suitable medium soil.

And for those who do not like to use it, you will never have to! It's not obligatory:)

Answer 9

Oh, irony: “small print” is metonymism for something purely presentation, usually carrying only important information, but harder to read to make the reader skip it. Back on print day, that would be pure CSS.