Styling First Word as Bold

Also I wouldn’t recommend the first-line pseudo class for another erason: the styles from that class are read from the browsers first line break of text that goes to the next line. Whilst in normal view this may seem fine and dandy, but once you start increasing font-size your f*cked!!

Yeah, Depreciated means you don’t appreciate what has been given to you.

Deprecated - means out of date (Outta a style yah dig?)

Ryan, is da bomb bahaha.:wink:

Depreciated is like (SeaWorld) And Deprecated is like (Cedar Point) You see the difference?

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head><title>Drop CSS Bombs</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css">

.dabomb {

    font-weight:bold;
    font-size:8em;
    

}
.dropCSSbombs {
    font-weight:bold;
    padding-left:10px;
    font-style:italic;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>

     <span class="dabomb">Bold</span> 
     <span class="dropCSSbombs">Dropping CSS Bombs (Italic Text)</span>                    

</body>
</html>

:slight_smile: Thanks.

Anyway @Blake. I have no idea what that crap is lol. I’m too young to understand what that is/expect me to know.

And what is that

<b></b>

rubbish? What is this “Myspace”?

Thats like

<big></big>
<small></small>

Those are Garbage. Your h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 can do the same thing and be 100% Valid. :slight_smile:

Myspace is actually how I got into CSS. I styled my first page (god it was so horrible looking) nad I remember using <marquee> LOL!

Did everyone forget about SitePoint’s HTML Reference?

It not only tells you that <b> is not deprecated, but gives you an example of when it’s more appropriate than a <span> or <em>.

The CSS trolls have been brainwashing some of you into mindless <div> and <span> usage!

Amen brothah! Long live <b>!!!

Now <u>, that IS deprecated, but I think it shouldn’t be, simply because one of those bibliography styles I was taught in school required that titles of sources be underlined… and for typography I don’t want to use CSS, because it must be in the content.

But <i> is still good for <i>Homo sapiens</i> and <b> is good for… something, somewhere. I actually last used it as a sandbag for rounded corners, lawlz.

<big>, yeah I wouldn’t miss it. But <small>? <small> is totally necessary.

For the h1 issue, I wouldn’t even give that span the benefit of a name-- there’s only ever one h1 on my page anyway. So I can get away with

<h1> blah blah blah<span>blah blah blah</span></h1>
h1 {
styles;
}
h1 span {
moar styles;
}

Though an anchor can do the job too, and yeah once I even managed to get away with using <small> after seeing someone else use it… it was like

<h1>COMPANY NAME <small>better living thru kemistree</small></h1>
h1 {
styles;
}
h1 small {
display: block;
font-size: .microscopic!;
font-style: italic;
text-indent: .5em;
moar styles;
}

it seemed to make semantic sense at the time, for the main page only (other pages got a <p> there) and was an excuse to use someone other than a span : ) Not that I have any agendas against spans, they’re nice people.

I thought depreciated means outdated??

If you’ve heard the word “appreciated” when referring to financial stuff (instead of, I appreciate your visit) then “depreciated” makes more sense… they are opposites of each other. Your car will always depreciate, but your house might appreciate. It’s nothing to do with age or what’s hip, but almost always monetary value. Like stocks.

I appreciate the sudden appreciation of my no-longer depreciating funds! Lawlz!

That is one of the most absurd things I have read lately, considering the fact H1-6 elements are block level elements and are intended only for marking up headings, stating that the use of them could effectively replace <B>, <I>, <Strong> or <Em> which are intended for use within a block level element is simply wrong. Heading tags are only to be used for that, headings. If you require something to be given emphasis (as in something requiring to be spoken or read out of context), strength (as in something with added meaning or priority) or if you require the use of Bold and Italic tags (when no other tag is appropriate and it needs contextual meaning rather than an empty span) you would use the appropriate tag for its purpose.

While I agree that using div’s and span’s in excess is a bad thing, I find the main reason why people don’t like using bold and italic is that for so many years people abused them, many have forgotten the genuine and appropriate use of the element. When a block of text holds semantic meaning which requires it being given emphasis without importance in the document flow (which therefore counteracts the reasoning for using em, strong or span) in preference.

However in the OP’s case, he wanted Names to be given the bold treatment, now in my opinion under the conditions of when each tag should be used, the fact it is a name (a title of a person) which is being highlighted, that holds semantic meaning almost to the point of being a heading for the sentence.

As the name refers to the origin of the sentence I retract my original assessment of using em and strong but to use <cite> instead as under the circumstances it is clearly more semantically valid. The Cite tags primary use is to quote the origin of a block of text, of course bold can be applied to the person or source of that sentence (through CSS), but personally I feel everyone is wrong in the correct semantic use so far and have re-evaluated that to cite the name of the sentence origin and to apply bold to that cited name as it would be more semantically meaningful then to use B, I, Strong, Em, or Span.

PS: While in this case the citation would not be to another source (such as a book or publication), it is indeed citing an individual or conversation and therefore would be appropriate for use IMHO to cite the origin of the words that have been spoken.

I don’t ALWAYS think divs and spans are best for all situations…:p.

Well semantically I would probably do it like this :slight_smile:


<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<style type="text/css">
* {
    margin:0;
    padding:0
}
.people dt {
    font-weight:bold;
    float:left;
    clear:left;
    padding:0 5px;
}
.people dd {
    margin:0 0 10px;
    padding:0 5px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<dl class="people">
    <dt>Joe:</dt>
    <dd>This is the text related to the person mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph. This is the text related to the person mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.</dd>
    <dt>Bill:</dt>
    <dd>This is the text related to the person mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph. This is the text related to the person mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.</dd>
    <dt>Fred:</dt>
    <dd>This is the text related to the person mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph. This is the text related to the person mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.</dd>
</dl>
</body>
</html>


Assuming that the text that follows the name is providing information about that person.

Lawlz, I had said I thought using a dl was a stretch!

I see it as a perfect use of the dl assuming the prose relates to the person mentioned at the start. :slight_smile:

It is very similar to how the w3c show its usage as an example.

e.g.


<DL>
  <DT>Dweeb
  <DD>young excitable person who may mature
    into a <EM>Nerd</EM> or <EM>Geek</EM>

  <DT>Hacker
  <DD>a clever programmer

  <DT>Nerd
  <DD>technically bright but socially inept person

</DL>


Aren’t definition lists for marking up pairs of information? By what you have posted each person’s name would have a meaning (what they say) which works fine if each person only expressed one single opinion, however when they say more than a single thing you would be applying duplicate definitions to a single item which I don’t think is very semantic. I still stand by what I said earlier about using the Cite tag to quote the speech of an individual.

Note: Definition lists only apply if you are defining specific terms, such as for a dictionary or referencing the meaning to terms in a document, and no… an individual is not defined by their name, unless of course every person with that name holds that definition.

No you are incorrect as the data term is a single term but you can have multiple DD (data definitions) referring to the same single dt. That’s what dls are supposed to be used for and is therefore 100% semantic (assuming that the context is as I have already said because we are still guessing as to the real use :)).

No you are incorrect again and as specified by the w3c here.

Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with each [URL=“http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#edef-DT”] DT naming a speaker, and each [URL=“http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#edef-DD”]DD containing his or her words.

Therefore I still stand by my example :slight_smile:

I still stand by what I said earlier about using the Cite tag to quote the speech of an individual.

I would disagree as the cite should point to an outside resource and the speech would be in a q element.

Yea I was wrong on the case of definition lists though I think it strange you can have multiple definitions for the same thing which aren’t required to be grouped together, it feels unorganised for me, though I have never had to mark-up conversations before between speakers, but the W3C says your method is the correct one so I certainly won’t argue with that :stuck_out_tongue: lol

I’ve seen dl’s used for interviews, however it was

dt: question

dd: answer (in multiple paragraphs sometimes)

I certainly don’t restrict them to dictionary definitions… I don’t think I’ve ever had a dictionary definition on any page I’ve built. I’ll stretch it to, any key-value pairs in a sequence that could have been in a list.

I could agree with it, but it would be last on my list of possibilities here : ) Prolly because I don’t see an interview as a list but a sequence. “Sequence” meaning how Tommy usually uses it when he doesn’t think something’s a list : )

It’s good to disagree some times :slight_smile:

Yea, we get to share in each other’s bemusement at the complexities of developing what originally seemed simple mark-up but ends up being a science which occasionally might require some of those dudes at NASA to reduce the brain melting logic. :smiley:

That’s why we have Tommy on board :slight_smile: