teammatt3 — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:32:54 +0000

Interesting stuff, HTML semantics. The use of is clear as mud for me now

I think I'm going to use it to make stuff , the real reason I don't want to use a is because if I have it embedded in a PHP echo, I have to escape the double quotes. Lazy, I know, but I'm anti-semantic :devil:

mscreashuns — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:06:01 +0000

If it does, it's a hidden gem that it seems only Megan knows about. Even your wife won't divulge unto you these HTML secrets? Marriage is based on the whole truth, isn't it?

Seriously though, I've never heard of it and it isn't listed in my master reference of all HTML tags and attributes.

JeevesBond — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:06:06 +0000

The [incode][/incode] tag, now there's an idea! Seriously, that's a good one IMO.

*** EDIT ***
Just checking: that tag doesn't exist already does it? Am hoping it's not something I've been missing all these years.

Megan — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:12:39 +0000

The semantic meaning of stuff like this really comes out when think about how screen readers would handle it. I'm not sure if they treat any differently. I know they read and in different voices to show their meaning. It might be nice to have a tag that does de-emphasis. I know I somethimes put things in brackets or something as an aside - these could be in the tag (de-emphasis) and read appropriately by screen readers.

JeevesBond — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:07:37 +0000

That's interesting webwiz. [incode][/incode] doesn't seem like a very apt name for that purpose though. Perhaps it should be the: [incode][/incode] tag.

But seriously I would have thought [incode][/incode] was more 'semantic' than [incode][/incode] in that instance.

Matt wrote: It's better than doing ...Don't pick your nose... right?

I think they're about the same in terms of meaning. Well maybe [incode][/incode] is a little better, but not much. So the question is a bit of a trick. Had you asked for a better way of marking up the content without using [incode][/incode] we could have answered with something like: [incode][/incode].

webwiz — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:57:00 +0000

There was some discussion of this issue recently on the Web Standards discussion group. The general consensus concluded there is little use for -- why is it "big"? If for emphasis, we have and ; if for effect, use CSS font-size.

Some saw a use for as a way of indicating de-emphasis. An example given was the strap line in a page heading: Both title and strapline could go in the with the strap line enclosed in .

Not sure that I would use this, but many seem to feel it's okay.

Megan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:36:04 +0000

Why is it big, why is it small? If it's not strong or emphasis, then maybe there's a place for them. They are listed under the font styles in the HTML 4 spec. Some of the font styles (strike and underline) are depreciated. I know there was some discussion about removing b and i from the HTML 5 spec but they decided to leave them in because there are some cases where things are just bold without meaning strong.

I can see more use of than - I often find myself doing things like . However, those are mainly block level elements and not inline.