<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bold Strong Italic Emphasis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/</link>
	<description>A journal of art, thoughts, and projects by Jason Beaird.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:02:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: fatboy</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1126</link>
		<dc:creator>fatboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1126</guid>
		<description>too much tags to know about everyone...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>too much tags to know about everyone&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne Petersen</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1125</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne Petersen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1125</guid>
		<description>I asked for a site review somewhere and got beat over the head for still using the deprecated  and , so I think most people think that we are not to use them any more. I use them just to make particular words stand out visually, no emphasis intended.

Your explanation makes it a bit clearer - I think I can stick with  and .
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I asked for a site review somewhere and got beat over the head for still using the deprecated  and , so I think most people think that we are not to use them any more. I use them just to make particular words stand out visually, no emphasis intended.</p>
<p>Your explanation makes it a bit clearer &#8211; I think I can stick with  and .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Beaird</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1124</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Beaird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1124</guid>
		<description>Good argument Mark.  I tend to agree, especially with italics.  If you only want italic styled text with no underlying emphases suggested, using &lt;i&gt; makes much more sense than say, using an italic styled &lt;span&gt; tag. As I said before, I started using &lt;strong&gt; over &lt;b&gt; and &lt;em&gt; over &lt;i&gt; simply because I noticed a trend.  I had no idea what the semantic argument was at the time and I think most people avoid &lt;b&gt; and &lt;i&gt; out of ignorance.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good argument Mark.  I tend to agree, especially with italics.  If you only want italic styled text with no underlying emphases suggested, using &lt;i&gt; makes much more sense than say, using an italic styled &lt;span&gt; tag. As I said before, I started using &lt;strong&gt; over &lt;b&gt; and &lt;em&gt; over &lt;i&gt; simply because I noticed a trend.  I had no idea what the semantic argument was at the time and I think most people avoid &lt;b&gt; and &lt;i&gt; out of ignorance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Kawakami</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1123</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Kawakami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1123</guid>
		<description>You know, I&#039;ve thought a lot about this, and I really want to give &lt;b&gt; and &lt;i&gt; back to the developer community. I find that although though the intention is good, &lt;strong&gt; and &lt;em&gt; are in actual practice used in exactly the same way as their one-letter counterparts. In other words, I really don&#039;t believe that there is any semantic difference whatsoever between &lt;b&gt; and &lt;strong&gt; or between &lt;i&gt; and &lt;em&gt;, and in the case of italics, in some cases are actually used opposite of what the &lt;em&gt; tag is meant for.  For instance people might want to italicize a photo credit, so they use &lt;em&gt; thinking it has more semantic value. But are they really trying to emphasize the photo credit? Usually they&#039;re trying to make that text appear &quot;lighter&quot;, in other words to differentiate it from other nearby text without adding the appearance of additional importance. They are in fact de-emphasizing the snippet of text, not emphasizing it.

Really the question of what holds greater or lesser semantic weight is a red herring, in my opinion. When encountering some text that a web developer would like rendered in italics, the question shouldn&#039;t be between &lt;i&gt; and &lt;em&gt;, but rather whether there is some other even more appropriate markup structure they should be using.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, I&#8217;ve thought a lot about this, and I really want to give &lt;b&gt; and &lt;i&gt; back to the developer community. I find that although though the intention is good, &lt;strong&gt; and &lt;em&gt; are in actual practice used in exactly the same way as their one-letter counterparts. In other words, I really don&#8217;t believe that there is any semantic difference whatsoever between &lt;b&gt; and &lt;strong&gt; or between &lt;i&gt; and &lt;em&gt;, and in the case of italics, in some cases are actually used opposite of what the &lt;em&gt; tag is meant for.  For instance people might want to italicize a photo credit, so they use &lt;em&gt; thinking it has more semantic value. But are they really trying to emphasize the photo credit? Usually they&#8217;re trying to make that text appear &#8220;lighter&#8221;, in other words to differentiate it from other nearby text without adding the appearance of additional importance. They are in fact de-emphasizing the snippet of text, not emphasizing it.</p>
<p>Really the question of what holds greater or lesser semantic weight is a red herring, in my opinion. When encountering some text that a web developer would like rendered in italics, the question shouldn&#8217;t be between &lt;i&gt; and &lt;em&gt;, but rather whether there is some other even more appropriate markup structure they should be using.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1122</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:26:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1122</guid>
		<description>I thought it was a simple semantic argument: &quot;How does a text-reader &lt;em&gt;pronounce&lt;/em&gt; bold?&quot;

Which is sort of the same thing you said, but represented in a way that doesn&#039;t need as many examples of what &quot;structural&quot; really means.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought it was a simple semantic argument: &#8220;How does a text-reader <em>pronounce</em> bold?&#8221;</p>
<p>Which is sort of the same thing you said, but represented in a way that doesn&#8217;t need as many examples of what &quot;structural&quot; really means.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Perkins</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1121</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Perkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1121</guid>
		<description>Well it looks better now :)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well it looks better now :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Beaird</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1120</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Beaird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1120</guid>
		<description>I think I actually geek&#039;d out sometime during the 6th grade.  What happened above (and in my feed) was a missing closing tag that somehow caused Movable Type to wrap this whole entry in a &lt;pre&gt; tag. I never noticed it because for some reason my front page, which pulls the text from the db, looked normal.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I actually geek&#8217;d out sometime during the 6th grade.  What happened above (and in my feed) was a missing closing tag that somehow caused Movable Type to wrap this whole entry in a &lt;pre&gt; tag. I never noticed it because for some reason my front page, which pulls the text from the db, looked normal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Perkins</title>
		<link>http://jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1119</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Perkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.jasongraphix.com/journal/bold-strong-italic-emphasis/#comment-1119</guid>
		<description>I thought there was something wrong with your feed, but alas, there is not. You&#039;re just geekin&#039; out.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought there was something wrong with your feed, but alas, there is not. You&#8217;re just geekin&#8217; out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
