HTML <b> <i> <u> OR CSS font-weight font-style ? Which is better?

Obvously as everyone say, CSS font weight and font-style is better as we can make changes to this whenever we want, its more easier to handle and make code cleaner and more valuable

 

Hmm I was just reading and in HTML5 both the <b> and <strong> tags are going to have different meanings:

So I think where we would usually use a Span to style just a letter or 2 of text, we would use the <b>, and if we want to convey extra importance on a word or 2 then use the strong tag..

I forgot to add:

All quoted from W3C on HTML 5

 

That's pretty much what I said earlier, with more detail, and some differences in convention choices. I took part (very small) in the html5 discussions on this subject through the whatwg-ml.

The semantic nature of conventions was not an easy sell. It is an important concept.

cheers,

gary

 

PHfffft! These are the same people who are adding a <font> tag back into the markup, a <canvas> tag, and other presenational markup.

Not that I'll ever be using HTML5 anyway... they have a lot of nice ideas but they're removing some stuff I need.

 

I always thought they actually had differences, even though I never actually knew where did they actually were. This reply has been really clarifying for me, thanks!

 

I mostly prefer to use HTML tags as they are easy to remember n small

 

I thinks there's a different between the css closing tags

 

Yes, pls seperate the style and the content . It is obviously the trend .
It is effective and save your time .

 

CSS is more flexible. If you know what you're gonna be doing using the elements, class and id, you should be fine.

 

Buddy of mine from another forums came up with an excellent example that shows the semantic use of each:

"<b><i>GURPS,</i></b> <b>Steve Jackson Games'</b> flagship roleplaying game, was first released in 1985. Several licensed adaptations of other companies' games exist for the system, such as <b><i>GURPS Bunnies and Burrows.</i></b> However, <b>SJ Games</b> has no connection with <b>Wizards of the Coast</b>, producers of the <i>Dungeons and Dragons</i> RPG. <em>No <b><i>GURPS,</i></b> content is open-source.</em> <strong>Do not plagarize <b>SJ Games</b> work!</strong>"

Italic is for a book or product title, Bold is for it being a relevant topic to the page or a company name, em implies information of greater importance, while the strong tag hammers home a point. If the page is about SJG, their products get both bold and italic, while the company name gets the bold. WotC is another company, so it too gets the bold. D&D is another companies product, so it just gets the italic while GURPS:B&B gets both being a SJG product. The no open source comment is a separate informational that they wanted emphasized, and of course the DO NOT text gets strong to smack you upside the head with a warning. The bold inside the strong may not show for the end user, but is included for semantics. (You could always apply color to that combination). While the minimalists in us may dislike the bold tag followed by a bold tag in the first sentance, it is semantically correct as the two elements there are separate items. We're talking about applying semantic wrappers, NOT appearance.

I think that's the big problem people have in their mind understanding semantic markup - the separation of presentation from content. <em>You have to forget that ANY of these tags have default appearances</em> and use them for what they SAY, <strong>NOT</strong> how they will appear. While <b>bold</b> and <b>italic</b> are presentational names, their use in a grammatical sense is unrelated to the appearance on the page - book titles, company names, or just as presentational hooks that do not effect the elements importance on the page. Think of the relationship between B/I and STRONG/EM as the same as that between a DIV and a P, or SPAN and VAR. They can be made to do the same thing, are the same HTML 'level', but one is semantic neutral, the other is not. Just because a tag is semantic nuetral and has a default appearance akin to it's name doesn't mean don't use it. If that were the case we'd all have to stop using DIV, which used to mean "Division"... a meaning that was 'lost' on that element sometime around the release of HTML 4 a decade ago as it's now just a 'generic container'.

Using them in that order also helps with your keyword stuffing.

 

I go for HTML because is more indexable by search engines

 

how about read the topic before you post you clown

 

all the people are so much thanks to enhance my knowledge...

 

Css font-weight is the best solution for this.. because you change style without change your content. My suggestion is CSS What is yours?

 

hey!

Can anyone tell me if I'm so wrong with my comment?

He ask about using HTML or CSS for the weight of the font... I answer that I prefer HTML thinking in the web page SEO... what's wrong with that???

 

Wow, when did the engrish moist goodry brigade show up to bump to the rump?

 

That you ignored the entire thread full of better answers? <b> does not enhance or do anything for SEO. Font-weight ignores ALL of the above explanations.

 

Bump rump?! Why you the thing on wat cuz the other side?