<b> or <strong>, which is better?

[tombstoneweb]

As one whose programming experience began in 1958, I take exception to the claim that using CSS is "proper" coding practice. These "style" wars have been ongoing for decades, with this one simply being one of the latest.

The fact is that CSS is not appropriate for all needs, with the issue at hand being one of them. Employing CSS for simple bolding of isolated words is the equivalent of using a howitzer to swat a fly.

What a wealth of information. I love this forum!!

That said, I tend to lean toward deepsand's feelings here. Mostly I am reffering to dealing with bolding/emphasising isolated words in larger blocks of text. To me, it is just quicker to open and close a <b> tag around one or two words than to close a <span>, start a new <span class..>, close that <span> and open the original <span> again. And by using <strong> I am using 5 more characters per incident. I don't think I'm being lazy, I just prefer the simplest means to an end. Of course, when it comes down to usablity, if browsers stop supporting the <b> tag, I would be forced to adopt the <strong> tag (and be happy doing it).

And that gets back to my question. Should I just go ahead and start replacing my <b> tags as I go so I won't have a lot of revising to do in the future?

[deepsand]

And that gets back to my question. Should I just go ahead and start replacing my <b> tags as I go so I won't have a lot of revising to do in the future?

I think it safe to say that, given the mass of data already in existence that employs the <b> & <i> tags, such will be grandfathered for quite some time to come.

[srblogger]

STRONG:Indicates stronger emphasis.
Paragraphs, Lines, and Phrases

[deepsand]

Per citation:

"EM: Indicates emphasis

STRONG: Indicates stronger emphasis"

Note the absence of definitions for either "emphasis" or "stronger." That's because such are dependent on the rendering agent, as there noted by the following:

"The presentation of phrase elements depends on the user agent. Generally, visual user agents present EM text in italics and STRONG text in bold font. Speech synthesizer user agents may change the synthesis parameters, such as volume, pitch and rate accordingly."

<EM> & <STRONG> are merely <i> & <b> re-named, so as to descriptively accommodate non-visual rendering agents. Functionally such agents merely need only treat the latter tags as being the former.

[iany]

<strong> is better for seo reasons. Spiders put more emphasis on <strong> than they do <b> text.

Not sure about that.
<b> versus <strong> - Google Community


Also might want to consider this:

<b> - a presentational element.
If you want text to be bold and not have any real semantic meaning, then wrap it in <b></b>.

<strong> - a structure element.
If you want text to be spoken with strong emphasis using a speech reader, then wrap it in <strong></strong>.

However, this covered quite comprehensivell last year;
http://www.webproworld.com/graphics-...ng-strong.html

Good huh?

ian

[iany]

As one whose programming experience began in 1958, I take exception to the claim that using CSS is "proper" coding practice. These "style" wars have been ongoing for decades, with this one simply being one of the latest.

There are those who contend that html is not programming (and certainlg CSS isn't) -particularly as most websites are built using WYSWIG editors.
However, I guess the guys at W3 are wasting their time trying to establish standards then?
World Wide Web Consortium - Web Standards

Sure CSS is the latest but there are a lot of really talented guys and girls developing this, Deepsand, have a good look at Eric Meyer's outstanding work on this Eric Meyer: CSS and, of course, css Zen Garden: The Beauty in CSS Design.

Look and learn.

Cheers

Ian

[emps]

Hi all,
I have a question that has been bugging me for a little while. Somewhere I heard that the <b> tag has been depreciated in favor of the <strong> tag. What would be the reasoning for this?
It seems to me that using the <b> tag would keep the size of your files smaller than if you use the <strong> tag by virtue of using fewer characters in your code.
What do you guys think? Is the bold tag gone?
Thanks in advance!!

How would each appear to the w3c validator?
Obviously i have,nt checked personally






<snip... Please add your link to your signature. CD>

[deepsand]

There are those who contend that html is not programming (and certainlg CSS isn't) -particularly as most websites are built using WYSWIG editors.

Still, for many, it is a war of styles. (No pun intended.)

However, I guess the guys at W3 are wasting their time trying to establish standards then?

Did I say that? I think not.

What I did say was that the newer tags replace the older ones in name only. It's up to the rendering agent to determine how to handle them.

And, forget not that backward compatibility is rated very highly in the IT community. Despite the claims of the evangelists, support for <i> & <b> will be around for a very long time, as the terabytes of static data now extant are not going to be converted merely owing to a new standard being implemented.

Sure CSS is the latest but there are a lot of really talented guys and girls developing this, Deepsand, have a good look at Eric Meyer's outstanding work on this Eric Meyer: CSS and, of course, css Zen Garden: The Beauty in CSS Design.

All well and good; but, avoids the issue of practicality. To repeat, don't use a howitzer to swat a fly.

[iany]

All well and good; but, avoids the issue of practicality. To repeat, don't use a howitzer to swat a fly.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Styles sheets and CSS when done properly are so much easier and, therefore, more practical than tables, nested with tables, nest within tables especially if you don't use a WYSIWYG.

Ian

[iany]

How would each appear to the w3c validator?
Obviously i have,nt checked personally

No difference.

The issue is we are not really talking about the same thing.
<b> tags make the enclosed chars bold but make no difference to screen readers. <strong>are for strong emphasis which in print is bold, but is recognised by screen reader and rendered as strong emphasis. If building websites that comply with accessibility stuff then it does become an issue.

Hey let's go watch the Olympics!

Ian