Something what folks should know

[tzikeh]

I'm certain that this happens to absolutely everyone--sometimes, someone will say "I had no idea!" about something regarding computers, or the Internet, that I had assumed was common knowledge. When that happens, I often think, "Gosh, I bet lots of people don't know this, and I could post about it!" And then I don't. But because so much of my community writes stories, and then posts them on the Internet, I thought I should bring this particiular info to folks' attention.

The <b> and <i> tags are deprecated, and have been since December, 2007. The standard HTML tag for italics is <em> (emphasis). The standard HTML tag for bold is <strong>.

<b> and <i> have been deprecated since the implementation of HTML4. Deprecated, in this instance, means that browsers will *most likely* support them, for backwards compatibility, but there is no guarantee as to how long that will hold true. At any point in the future, an updated version of a browser (or a new browser yet to be developed) may not support these tags, at which point the W3C will demote them from "deprecated" to "obsolete."

There are a bunch of other deprecated tags from HTML4, but these are the most prevalent in fanfiction, so I figured that highlighting these two, rather than posting a relatively comprehensive list, was a smart way to go.

I'm not saying fanfiction authors should rush out and search-and-replace all of these tags in all of their stories, but it's definitely something to consider. The <em> and <strong> tags are a part of HTML5 (which has been under development since the day HTML4 was finalized), and the Last Call document for HTML5 is expected to be issued in May.

If you want to know more, you can visit HTML Goodies (a terrific resource for any HTML coding), or browse the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) site (extensive, with more news about HTML standards than you could ever hope to remember).

Comments

[reginagiraffe]

That's... annoying and inefficient. Why replace a simple one letter code with a multi-letter code that takes longer to write and is more prone to errors?

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

You'll have to ask the W3C. :D All I know is that it's true.

[ratcreature]

Because the underlying logic demands that HTML is not for layout but for content coding. The two are actually not meaning the same. If you want to make something italic for simple design reason rather than have it mean "emphasis" you are supposed to do it with CSS and assign "italic" to the contents class. The tag "cite" makes things italic in most browsers too, and yet it does not mean the same as italic. Emphasis does not mean italic either.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, CSS is the main answer to almost all of the tag changes, but the problem for fanfiction writers is that they tend to post in places where you cannot point to an external css sheet (lj, AO3, ff.net, etc.).

[ratcreature]

Sure, but the solution for that within the HTML model would be the archives offering a coding shortcut like wikis do or the like, and then the archive editor/input assigns that the proper formatting class or something. It's not the fault of the model to seperate content from formatting, that archives make people handcode their typesetting.

[ipstenu.livejournal.com]

I know this one.

strong, when changed in your CSS to be heavier text (which is not the same as bold), still makes 'sense' versus changing bold to be a different style.

They wanted to specifically be LESS exact and allow for you to define what you think strong and emphasis should be. Of course, I wish strong could be abbreviated st, but that conflicted with strikethrough, and sg made no sense to anyone :/

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

It's helpful for screenreaders to know the difference between something that's being emphasized (and would thus be in an "em" tag) and something that's not, but that might also display in italics (say, the content of a "cite" tag).

Same with bold vs. strong -- sometimes you want your screenreader yelling at you, sometimes you don't. :D Hence, the different uses of "strong" and "font-weight".

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

Just going to say - I was thinking that the main use of that tag as opposed to the deprecated one would be as metadata for text-to-speech converters.

[stevenglassman.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much what I said when I first learned of this a long while back. Irritating.

[ipstenu.livejournal.com]

I suspect that, as b/i is less problematic than the old blink tag, they'll stick around for a long time as deprecated but supported.

Of course that doesn't mean one day LJ won't stop using them....

So a lot of fanfic writers don't use font or underline? You can tell I stopped reading fanfic a while ago!

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

good lord, no. :D

[droolfangrrl.livejournal.com]

What's a blink tag...

*goes EUREKA and cackles....

[carbonel]

Thanks for the info. I know that my boss's blog uses "em" and "strong" when I click on the relevant buttons instead of hand-coding it myself, but I hadn't known why.

I really wish there were "indent first line" and "indent full paragraph" HTML tags. "Blockquote" just doesn't cut it.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Blockquote is depcrecated, and has been replaced by <Q> (quote). Check the sites I recced above for more info.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

Neep, that I didn't know. *mental note to visit link*

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Indent first line.

Indent paragraph.

Note: they're not single tags, but they're very simple, very short inline CSS commands (they can go in the HEAD tag rather than a CSS).

[magdalene1.livejournal.com]

I did not know that! Thank you, useful tip lady!

[usakeh.livejournal.com]

I was not aware of this; thanks for letting us all know about it!

[klia.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I didn't know that, either, but then the only place I ever use HTML coding is here.

I'm kinda bummed because my typesetting background used to make it easy for me to remember HTML coding.

[maybethistime.livejournal.com]

Yes, because everyone needs longer tags to possibly mistype while coding. *heavy sigh*

W3C, you are on my List.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Heh - I've got macros for most tags, as well as most-often-typed URLs, so I don't worry about misspellings.

[meri-oddities.livejournal.com]

I only found out about this about a month ago. I have way too many stories coded with i/b to go back and redo it.

Thanks for the site. That's going to be very useful.

[azriona.livejournal.com]

But why???? (She wailed, using "i" for her italics.) It makes so much more sense to use i and b to denote italics and bold, rather than em and strong. Plus, it's SHORTER. And I'm so used to typing them I do it without thinking now! ARGH, INTERNET, WHY WON'T YOU DO MY BIDDING ALREADY??????

(I don't actually mean to be argumentative. But this change doesn't make much sense to me. Do you know the reason why it was made?)

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Explanations in comments. :D

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I AM WITH YOU. So there.

[mtgat]

*sets them all on fire with her BRAIN*

You can pry my < b > and < i > tags from my cold, dead keyboard. *grumble*

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

:pets: Sorry, dude. Universal access is a bitch, right? </sarcasm>

[mtgat]

Backwards compatibility can coexist with access. Creating web languages that "may not support" code that's been in place as standard since the days before Netscape is not a useful upgrade.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

AND MIIIIIIIINE!!!

[bailunrui.livejournal.com]

As a former web designer, I'm glad HTML5 is FINALLY getting supported. Now if only CSS3 would be fully supported...

[kadymae.livejournal.com]

As somebody with carpal tunnel who has to hand coding from time to time and/or who pre-tags text as I write, I want to smack the Highlords of HTML for depreciating the i, b, and s tags.

Yes, at the end of the day, when I want to gnaw my wrists off, it matters if I can simply put "b" or have to type out "strong".

[starwatcher]

.
has to hand coding from time to time and/or who pre-tags text as I write,

Do you use MS Word for writing or editing? I know some people don't like it but, if you do, there's a lot you can do with the Word 'Replace' feature to do all the coding in one or two steps. I typed up a couple of "How-To" explanations a while back.

Quick-Coding Italics and Bold /and/ Finding Colored Font

Quick HTML Codes for Paragraphs on Webpages

(I had just learned about [em], and used [i] when I wrote the posts, but it's easy to sub [em] and [strong].)

They take a wee bit of practice but, since you're accustomed to hand-coding, making the switch shouldn't be too difficult. I'm finding it difficult to write italics without pre-coding... but if I force myself to use Ctrl-I in the document and not code, I can add codes with one command when I finish the story.

If you find them useful, feel free to share with anyone who would like the information; my policy is that knowledge is open to all.
.

[misspamela.livejournal.com]

I...had no idea, actually. Thanks!

[principia-coh.livejournal.com]

I've stuck with b and i because I've found in some places when I try to use the proper coding I end up with whatever cracked out thing emphasis or strong means to that site.

It may be deprecated, but at least it won't do random crap I don't want.

[mirandir.livejournal.com]

I had no idea!

[ramblinsuze.livejournal.com]

*grumble* I've been fighting this change for ages. Though I understand the why of it, it is incredibly inefficient for hand-coders to have to type that many more characters to create a "proper" tag. Bah. Grumpy old coder here. You kids and your CSS... ;)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

You mean I more or less could format my stuff, and now I have to learn new and more complicate things THAT MAY REQUIRE DRAGONS a CSS sheet, whatever that is when it's shagging Sherlock at home????

[spuffyduds.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I did not know that! Thank you.

[sethrak.livejournal.com]

Had no idea, and find it incredibly annoying. b and i are simple and short when writing LJ/DW updates.

Then again, I pretty much only use HTML for my journals. For documents, I alter the font or use the italicize/bold tools available in the word processor being used. For IMs, I use * on either side of a word for emphasis, and :: on either side of a word to denote actions. ::sighs:: I liked the old HTML, but grudgingly accept that progress and the needs of more competent coders march on.

(Does this affect strike? I adore strike.)