In some way, this reminds me of the day when people were trying to mimic Object Oriented programming in C (before C++ came). Everyone hated OO concept and people cried that C was not meant for OO. Yet, people still mimic OO in C using “struct”. Yes, I remember those days. Now people are all over OO as if it’s their best friend. Again, the way I’m using could be “wrong” but I strongly believe people need to think outside the box to come up with new way of doing things. Now I am accused of wasting my 10 yrs in IT because people think I suck in HTML~ what a cruel world!! I think all those IT publishers who took my ideas and printed must feel so stupid (not this HTML Idea, something else)~~ lol. Anyways, I’m glad I’m not part of the group who simply goes for “popular” choice. Still, it’s common that new ideas are hated first then loved later. Yes, I get your points but I’m still going to follow my belief. Let’s get back to original thread.
Oh, I would love that you would say something like that about me, even if it is not true… but then, this kind of mistake that really makes me wonder about IT literacy… since when is HTML a programming language? 
Back then you declared every variable as void*, am I right? 
Because that’s the equivalent of only using <div> in HTML.
void* foo = "A string";
void* bar_count = "42";
I think we have already established that sg707 hasn’t quite grasped what HTML is. 
Sorry for picking on you like this sg707, but it’s so hard to resist. And I think your skin is thick enough to take some friendly ribbing, eh?
- HTML 5 does define what a “paragraph” is regarding the spec. The current specification text says small chunks of text that do not form a sentence (like your copyright notice example) may be marked with the P element.
Can you cite your source? HTML is still a working draft and, of the drafts I’ve seen, I have not seen this statement anywhere. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I would like to see it.
Additionally, why would HTML want to go in this direction? If HTML 5 is supposed to be about making the web more semantic, why wouldn’t there be a designated an element for fragments?
Neh, I’m used to it. In my life, many people have told me it’s NOT Possible and I always loved it when I prove them wrong. Speaking one’s mind and believing is more important than believing in other people’s philosophy. Still, I’m glad I got my point out and yours. It’s good to know both sides.
I vote for p tags. Span is too netscape’ish.
That still doesn’t change the fact that it is an inline tag and not a block tag. Defining it any different in HTML 5 would mean browsers couldn’t support both HTML 4 and 5 and you’d need two different browsers depending on which HTML the page uses (since browsers ignore the actual specification and implement their own interpretation of each tag using the doctype only as a switch to turn on standards mode).
sg707, this is not about the “popular choice,” and it is not a matter of you having a new idea that will be rejected at first then accepted later; this is not a matter of, “you all have your way and i have my way and we’re all friends and in the end it doesn’t really matter what method you pick,” and it’s not about you being some visionary, avant garde trailblazer who has a better way of doing things when all the other poor schmucks are being left in your dust. Trust us, we admire visionary, avant garde trailblazers but in this regard you are not one of them. This is a matter of you simply having an incorrect understanding of the subject you’re talking about. We are not persecuting you for saying the earth is round. We are correcting you for saying it is flat.
How so? And you’re really saying to use P tags in place of the proper use of SPAN tags?
BTW, it’s okay to cite HTML tags in uppercase when not within an XHTML document you are hoping to validate. Once XHTML came along people seem to have got this idea in their head that they had to mention HTML tags in lowercase everywhere.
I didn’t say it wasn’t, my point was made in addition to yours!
This. In fact, it isn’t even a new way of doing things, as divitis is quite common, and it’s just as wrong everywhere else too!
Look at it this way: You are using HTML. HTML has a defined specification, which you are ignoring. You don’t have a new and amazing way of using HTML, you are just using it incorrectly. The web is not going to move in the direction you think, in fact the complete opposite - for MORE semantics. You have no understanding of what HTML tags are for, and don’t understand that they (mostly) aren’t styling tags (There are a couple of exceptions, <b> and <i> come to mind, but they still have semantic value as well). It’s not a case of having 2 different ways of doing things, or 2 schools of thought, or anything like that, it’s as simple as you are using the language incorrectly, and doing harm to anyone who tries to use your site as a result.
I don’t want to keep having a dig at you, but I’m just trying to get you out of the mindset that yours is a ‘differnet but equally valid’ way of doing things, which you seem to be in. It’s just plain wrong. If you don’t believe us, read the HTML specification. If you don’t want to follow the HTML specification, don’t use HTML (although you’d be pretty stuck providing a similar experience any other way).
Those tags are not for styling either - they have a specific use for discussions of typography as well as in areas where a particular typographical convention was adopted long before the invention of the internet - for example it became a common practice to show the names of books in italics several hundred years ago and so continuing that centuries old convention would be an acceptable use for the <i> tag. In that situation the use of the <i> tag would be the correct semantic tag for a book title.
Yeh, they are used for typographic conventions, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t styling tags. They are used for typographic styling conventions.
I disagree. The italic and bold element tags have intrinsic semantic values derived from their contexts. They are roughly analogous to the use of quote marks to delimit quotations.
Early on, ship names, and book and journal titles were made bold, while article titles, poem names, short story titles, and foreign phrases were italicized. Of late, the bold has dropped out of favor, the italicized now being preferred; likely due to being not as jarring to the flow of text.
cheers,
gary
Yes, they have semantic meaning, and I am well aware of the typographic conventions involving them, but none of this means they aren’t styling tags as well. I mean, look at the name! They are called the BOLD tag and ITALIC tag. Both of those are styles. They aren’t called the BOAT NAME tag or the POEM TITLE tag.
They have semantic value (as I mentioned in a previous post), and they are used for typographic conventions, and they are styling tags, all at the same time!
(Although, I’m pretty sure bold was never a typographic convention as you mention. Think about it - it is easy to make something italic when hand writing it, but not bold, at least not without being messy and crude about it)
and I always thought <b> stood for boat name tag and <i> stood for book title tag:)
<a> certainly doesn’t stand for hyperlink (or wait a second yes it does)
<document>
…
…
…
<cite>© 2009, Billy Bob</cite>
</document>
Cite is indicating a reference to the document(web site).
This is the point that is argued by many authors.
Well, if you’re using XML you can make up your own taxonomy and grammar. But I was talking about HTML, where there is no <document> tag and where <cite> has a specific meaning.
The HTML 4.01 specification, which is the latest and current spec describing HTML semantics, says that the cite element type
contains a citation or a reference to other sources
(Emphasis mine.)
The examples given in the text do not hint at it being used for self-referencing.
Lots of people have argued that the Earth is flat or that people of one skin colour/sex/religion or other is superior to the rest. Doesn’t mean they’re right.
HTML was designed to satisfy the requirements of scientists publishing scientific papers. That’s why we have tags like <dfn>, which is rarely used outside science and engineering. And scientists cite other sources a lot, so it’s no wonder they wanted a <cite> tag for that very purpose.
If HTML had been invented by accountants or librarians, the taxonomy would have been quite different. But as it is, we have to think like physicists to understand the intention behind most element types.
They are styling tags only if misused. I suppose you could call them something else, but why would you? The conventions call for you to use bold or italic fonts.
They have semantic value (as I mentioned in a previous post), and they are used for typographic conventions, and they are styling tags, all at the same time!
See above.
(Although, I’m pretty sure bold was never a typographic convention as you mention. Think about it - it is easy to make something italic when hand writing it, but not bold, at least not without being messy and crude about it)
The issue was not making italic or bold in a manuscript, but how to represent typographical conventions in manuscript or with the typewriter. Back in the old days, fifty years ago when I was in school, we studied the conventions as part of learning how to write research papers. Those items that were bold in type were rendered as underscored by hand or typewriter, and the italic items were indicated by quotes.
I’m sorry I have no more to cite than my memory. I can assure you that bold and italic were used as I have described. To this day, to see a bibliography that does not make the journal or book title bold, is jarring.
cheers,
gary
Yes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-p-element
which refers to
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#paragraph
This is the April 2009 version. It reads:
The p element represents a paragraph.
(…)
A paragraph is typically a block of text with one or more sentences that discuss a particular topic, as in typography, but can also be used for more general thematic grouping. For instance, an address is also a paragraph, as is a part of a form, a byline, or a stanza in a poem.
Because it’s a common understanding of the notion of «paragraph» applied to web content, and it does no harm. Because there is very little value (or maybe none) in making the semantics of the P tag match the definition of a literary paragraph.
Plus, it would make HTML 5 not back-compatible. In HTML 4, the definition of the P element can be understood very broadly. Actual use of the tag shows that it is used very broadly (with no problematic consequences that i know of). If HTML 5 gave a strict definition of the P element, that would mean that most HTML 4 pages would have to be modified to match that stricter definition. Unless there is a clear benefit to such a change, the change won’t happen in HTML 5.
Obviously if you think there is a clear benefit in making the P tag stricter, you can defend that case on the WHAT WG mailing list.
What would be the point of such an element? I can’t see one.