Urgent help please, record commands?

#21

"Michael Fesser" <netizen (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote

Quote:

.oO(P@tty Ayers ~ACE)

"Murray *ACE*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:g67ijt$chk$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...

...would depend entirely on the "SENSE" in which the tag is used.
For
those cases where it's used to convey only a visual design motif, and not
a
SPOKEN enhancement, then it would be perfectly accurate to continue using
b>.

But Murray, that goes completely against the concept of separation of
presentation from structure. If the desired outcome is just that certain
text be boldfaced, that's a matter of styling and should be done with CSS.
HTML tags are for marking up the text as to its role in the structure of
the
document, remember? :-)

b>: 7 chars
span class="b">: 23 chars

;-)

In this case I also use 'b'/'i' if the purpose is purely presentational.

And if number of characters is *your* highest priority, than, sure, it makes
sense to use . :-)

--
Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
--

#22

Why has everyone decided to hijack this thread and turn it into an arguement
about the tag?! I have no interest in using the bold tag. All I am
wanting to do, is change the tag which dreamweaver defaults to using
when you paste in bold content, from word for example, with my own tag.
The styling I have set up in CSS for the goes beyond anything [b] or [b]
does.

#23

murdod wrote:

Quote:

Why has everyone decided to hijack this thread and turn it into an arguement
about the tag?! I have no interest in using the bold tag. All I am
wanting to do, is change the tag which dreamweaver defaults to using
when you paste in bold content, from word for example, with my own tag.
The styling I have set up in CSS for the goes beyond anything [b] or [b]
does.

Have you considered applying those styles directly to the strong tag?
Basically redefine strong in your CSS, no need to search and replace.

Steve

#24

thanks for that Steve. I take your point, but the reason I'm getting rid of the
strong tag is because it is deprecated for strict html, and company policy is
"get rid of all strong tags site wide, to save work in the future"

#25

murdod wrote:

Quote:

thanks for that Steve. I take your point, but the reason I'm getting rid of the
strong tag is because it is deprecated for strict html, and company policy is
"get rid of all strong tags site wide, to save work in the future"

Sounds like you need to do a site wide search and replace then. First
search and replace with and then search
and replace with 

Steve

#26

THE STRONG TAG IS NOT DEPRECATED!

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================

"murdod" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

thanks for that Steve. I take your point, but the reason I'm getting rid
of the
strong tag is because it is deprecated for strict html, and company policy
is
"get rid of all strong tags site wide, to save work in the future"

#27

Murray *ACE* wrote:

Quote:

THE STRONG TAG IS NOT DEPRECATED!

Thats what I thought as well Murray, so I double checked, and according
to this website it is: http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm

But then this is from the horses mouth so to speak:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...ml#edef-STRONG

Steve

#28

Dooza wrote:

Quote:

Murray *ACE* wrote:
THE STRONG TAG IS NOT DEPRECATED!

Thats what I thought as well Murray, so I double checked, and according
to this website it is: http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm

But then this is from the horses mouth so to speak:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...ml#edef-STRONG

Steve

It is even in the HTML 5 draft spec:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-strong

Steve

#29

And by the way, http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would you believe anything on this page? Especially one with these errors -

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...epreciated.htm

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================

"Dooza" <doozadooza (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Murray *ACE* wrote:
THE STRONG TAG IS NOT DEPRECATED!

Thats what I thought as well Murray, so I double checked, and according to
this website it is: http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm

But then this is from the horses mouth so to speak:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...ml#edef-STRONG

Steve

#30

Murray *ACE* wrote:

Quote:

And by the way, http://www.html-reference.com/depreciated.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would you believe anything on this page? Especially one with these
errors -

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...epreciated.htm

Thats pretty poor! But then the entire site is. Its so out of date,
doesn't even mention doc types. The site should be taken down in my opinion.

Steve