HTML and Styles

Code (Text):

1. <style type="text/stylesheet">
2. b { font-color: yellow; }
3. </style>

 

Code (Text):

1. <style type="text/css">
2. b, strong
3. {
4.     color: #FFFF00;
5. }
6. </style>

Should do the trick if you are using the b or strong tag to bold your text.

 

Just a tip to adhere to "current day standards":
In new web page creation, try not to use , it's deprecated and won't port to XHTML right. Use instead.

 

They should stop ruining html with all this shit.
What are they going to replace and with, then? <textwritteninadiagonalfashion> and <letsputalinebelowwhatIwrite>?

edit: stupid word filter that capitalises the I

 

=
= Use CSS (text-decoration: underline)

 

There was nothing wrong with or etc. in the first place...

 

It was the same idea as changing <font> to be "use <span> with styles".


It's this XHTML purist bullshit for people who are blind/deaf/decrepit who would never even use 99% of the websites that adhere to stanards. It's stupid.

I mean, fuck, they were considering replacing "<img>" with a more general "<object>" tag. The only reason they didn't was because of TOTAL OUTRAGE from people.

 

Oh hells no. It was bad enough when they depreciated the

tag. They can have the tag when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

I hate XHTML, I try to comply to it, but I hate it nonetheless.​

 

According to what I've seen, HTML is not a language to describe the format of a web page, only the contents. You think you can use pure HTML to do simple formatting as in a text processor, which is not the case; this is a job for CSS. I find it a bit annoying to write more to do the same thing "better," and I really wish we could use custom elements (or at least have a good set of elements in the beginning), but in the end, CSS can usually do the job. If I'm crazy enough, I'll use XML + XSLT.

If you want to put some text in italics, it's to put an emphasis on it, so you use . If you want it bold, it's to put a strong emphasis on it, so you use . If you want it underlined, "you're doing it wrong," because traditionally, underlined text is associated with hyperlinks. If you really want to underline something, you could just use and style it appropriately.

If you want to know what's deprecated and what's not, look at the index of the HTML 4 elements.

I personally hate <br> and prefer <p> and <div>. The only place you'll see me use <br> is in links, because browsers don't support XLink enough yet (in before XLink is bad — I just want to be able to put a link on a block element instead of an inline element).

Also, I would have liked to see CSS progress faster. There are several interesting features in CSS 3 that wait to be implemented and used... And goddamn Internet Explorer will force webmasters to add fallback mechanisms.

I agree; <img> is already too well established, there's no way people will start using <object>, especially with (early versions of) Internet Explorer's screwy handling of <object> elements.

My rant is over, feel free to hate me now.

 

While stylesheets do add more complexity, in the end it also adds more flexibility as well.

It's the reason you can change the theme on a forum. On modern forum software, a theme is simply a set of stylesheets and images that are applied to the exact same HTML (ideally, anyway). The idea is to separate content from formatting.

 

Agreed. It's that much more easier to change a single line in a CSS file instead of changing it in 100+ files. However, I started with HTML back in the days when using <table> for layouts were all the rage. Hell, I even have a really old HTML4 book that is full of crap that would be taboo today. Switching to a <table> free layout required me to actually get off my ass and learn CSS, and for that I will never regret it. I even took a old layout that I made years before and converted it to pure CSS. The end result was remarkably smaller HTML code.