<small> (Design/Themes)

by Arnd, Thursday, April 09, 2009, 17:35 (3782 days ago)

Hi,

just a little hint - there is a HTML Tag <small> that's even valid in strict. (I just found lots of "<span class="small">" in the default template...)

Best

Arnd

Avatar

BBCode [size]

by Alfie ⌂ @, Vienna, Austria, Saturday, April 11, 2009, 01:35 (3780 days ago) @ Arnd

Hi Arnd!

just a little hint - there is a HTML Tag <small> that's even valid in strict.

Sure. And there's already a BBCode for it (and an other one for large text). Example:
NORMAL SMALL [color=#00f]LARGE[/color]

Syntax:
[size=small]foo[/size]
[size=large]bar[/size]

For a list of BBCodes see this post.

--
Best regards,
Alfie (Helmut Schütz)
BEBA-Forum (v1.8β)

Avatar

<small> vs. <span class="small">

by Alex ⌂ @, Saturday, April 11, 2009, 09:00 (3780 days ago) @ Alfie

Hi Alfie,

there is a HTML Tag <small> that's even valid in strict.

Sure. And there's already a BBCode for it

As I understood Arnd he wasn't referring to the BBCodes but to the markup in general. And he's probably right that <small> is better than <span class="small">. What I'm just wondering: isn't <small> a non-semantic tag like <b> and <i>?

Alex

<small> vs. <span class="small">

by Arnd, Saturday, April 11, 2009, 10:11 (3780 days ago) @ Alex

What I'm just wondering: isn't <small> a non-semantic tag like <b> and <i>?

It is. However, <i>,<b>,<big> and <small> are still valid in (x)HTML strict (while <u> and <s> are not), and sometimes useful.

Arnd

<small> vs. <span class="small">

by Auge, Saturday, April 11, 2009, 14:01 (3780 days ago) @ Alex

Hello

What I'm just wondering: isn't <small> a non-semantic tag like <b> and <i>?

Yes it is.

Tschö, Auge

Avatar

deprecated elements in (X)HTML strict

by Alfie ⌂ @, Vienna, Austria, Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 00:11 (3776 days ago) @ Auge

Hello Auge & Arnd!

What I'm just wondering: isn't <small> a non-semantic tag like <b> and <i>?


Yes it is.

No it isn't. :-D (SCNR)
OK, to be serious, it depends on the context (do we assume that CSS is available or not). <u>, <strike>, and <s> are deprecated since HTML 4.01 strict.
The separation of content [(X)HTML)] and layout (CSS) is a wonderful thing, but mainly for the developer of the website. In most cases results of

<p><u>foo</u></p>

and

<p><span class="underline">foo</span></p>

plus

.underline { text-decoration:underline; }

or even worse

.underline { border-bottom:thin solid black; }

will look very similar at the client, but the HTML is simply larger.

A nice historical overview by Tim Tepaße at Jeena's Blog is based on his post in the SELFHTML-Forum in 2005. Great to read (sorry folks, German only).

--
Best regards,
Alfie (Helmut Schütz)
BEBA-Forum (v1.8β)

deprecated elements in (X)HTML strict

by Arnd, Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 09:28 (3776 days ago) @ Alfie

Hi,

well we were talking about <small> originally. <small> has no semantic meaning, as little as <span>, so you might as well use it. If it was deprecated, I wouldn't, since I prefer my projects to validate as strict.
The point of interest is always: Is there a semantic tag that makes sense? You mentioned <strike>. That's deprecated since it has no semantics. <small> hasn't either, don't ask why it's not deprecated, no idea.
In the case of <strike> you might use <del> instead, if it makes sense. By default in common browsers¹, it's displayed the same way, but it has a semantic meaning: This part of text has been deleted.
However, I don't know a proper semantic element where Alex used <span class="small">, so <small> would do nicely.

Arnd

¹) However, I would add del {text-decoration:line-through;} in my stylesheet to be sure.

deprecated elements in (X)HTML strict

by Auge, Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 19:25 (3776 days ago) @ Alfie

Hello

What I'm just wondering: isn't <small> a non-semantic tag like <b> and <i>?


Yes it is.


No it isn't. :-D (SCNR)

Ohh doch: Yes it is.

The continuance of these elements in the standards may be reasonable, but their non semanticness stays as a fact.

In most cases results of [some code] will look very similar at the client, but the HTML is simply larger.

The separation between structure (HTML) and layout (CSS) may cause a larger source code (HTML and CSS) in consequence, but both codes are maintanable in a better way.

A nice historical overview by Tim Tepaße at Jeena's Blog is based on his post in the SELFHTML-Forum in 2005. Great to read (sorry folks, German only).

truly nice :-)

... but what does he say? he spokes about the history (HTML 2, 3.2, 4, XHTML 1) and about a overhauled future (XHTML 1.1, XHTML 2 vs. HTML 5). This future is not only overhauled, it is far far away from a satisfying implementation in the browsers (something similar with CSS 3, but that's another story).

Tschö, Auge

BBCode [size]

by Arnd, Saturday, April 11, 2009, 10:15 (3780 days ago) @ Alfie

Sure. And there's already a BBCode for it

As Alex wrote, I was referring to HTML not BBCode.

Arnd

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum