Order and placement of tags

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Tony Cooper, Sep 6, 2003.

  1. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
    problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.

    Following is an abbreviated format:

    <font face= "arial, helvetica">
    <table border=5>
    <tr>
    <th height= 50>
    <font size=6>
    TEXT - HEADING TITLE
    </font>
    </th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td>
    <img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
    <td>
    </tr>
    <td>
    <font size=3>
    <blockquote>
    <b>
    TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION

    (balance snipped)

    I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
    screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.

    Where do I put: width=90%?
    Tony Cooper, Sep 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > Where do I put: width=90%?
    >

    <table border=5 width="90%">

    If this is already in a table however (nested) it won't work.
    Chris Leonard, Sep 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
    > problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.
    >
    > Following is an abbreviated format:
    >
    > <font face= "arial, helvetica">
    > <table border=5>
    > <tr>
    > <th height= 50>
    > <font size=6>
    > TEXT - HEADING TITLE
    > </font>
    > </th>
    > </tr>
    > <tr>
    > <td>
    > <img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
    > <td>
    > </tr>
    > <td>
    > <font size=3>
    > <blockquote>
    > <b>
    > TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION
    >
    > (balance snipped)
    >
    > I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
    > screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.
    >
    > Where do I put: width=90%?
    >


    You've got bigger problems with that table than where you should put the
    width attribute.


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:27:30 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
    >> problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.
    >>
    >> Following is an abbreviated format:
    >>
    >> <font face= "arial, helvetica">
    >> <table border=5>
    >> <tr>
    >> <th height= 50>
    >> <font size=6>
    >> TEXT - HEADING TITLE
    >> </font>
    >> </th>
    >> </tr>
    >> <tr>
    >> <td>
    >> <img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
    >> <td>
    >> </tr>
    >> <td>
    >> <font size=3>
    >> <blockquote>
    >> <b>
    >> TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION
    >>
    >> (balance snipped)
    >>
    >> I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
    >> screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.
    >>
    >> Where do I put: width=90%?
    >>

    >
    >You've got bigger problems with that table than where you should put the
    >width attribute.


    That's helpful.
    Tony Cooper, Sep 7, 2003
    #4
  5. "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:27:30 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
    > >> problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.
    > >>
    > >> Following is an abbreviated format:
    > >>
    > >> <font face= "arial, helvetica">
    > >> <table border=5>
    > >> <tr>
    > >> <th height= 50>
    > >> <font size=6>
    > >> TEXT - HEADING TITLE
    > >> </font>
    > >> </th>
    > >> </tr>
    > >> <tr>
    > >> <td>
    > >> <img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
    > >> <td>
    > >> </tr>
    > >> <td>
    > >> <font size=3>
    > >> <blockquote>
    > >> <b>
    > >> TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION
    > >>
    > >> (balance snipped)
    > >>
    > >> I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
    > >> screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.
    > >>
    > >> Where do I put: width=90%?
    > >>

    > >
    > >You've got bigger problems with that table than where you should put the
    > >width attribute.

    >
    > That's helpful.


    You get what you pay for.
    If you want to pay me what my dayjob pays me, I'll teach you how to write
    HTML.

    or you can help yourself - http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 7, 2003
    #5
  6. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 22:49:13 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:27:30 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
    >> >> problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.
    >> >>
    >> >> Following is an abbreviated format:
    >> >>
    >> >> <font face= "arial, helvetica">
    >> >> <table border=5>
    >> >> <tr>
    >> >> <th height= 50>
    >> >> <font size=6>
    >> >> TEXT - HEADING TITLE
    >> >> </font>
    >> >> </th>
    >> >> </tr>
    >> >> <tr>
    >> >> <td>
    >> >> <img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
    >> >> <td>
    >> >> </tr>
    >> >> <td>
    >> >> <font size=3>
    >> >> <blockquote>
    >> >> <b>
    >> >> TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION
    >> >>
    >> >> (balance snipped)
    >> >>
    >> >> I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
    >> >> screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.
    >> >>
    >> >> Where do I put: width=90%?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >You've got bigger problems with that table than where you should put the
    >> >width attribute.

    >>
    >> That's helpful.

    >
    >You get what you pay for.
    >If you want to pay me what my dayjob pays me, I'll teach you how to write
    >HTML.


    I understand this. However, I did not solicit *your* help. By
    posting here, I'm asking that anyone that chooses to volunteer to
    provide some help. If you don't choose to do so, that's fine.

    There are some that choose to do so, and some that choose not to.
    Then, there's you that chooses to waste your time and mine being a
    smart-ass. I can out-smart-ass you anytime. If you want lessons,
    I'll set a rate for you. It'll be a rather high rate since it doesn't
    appear that you'll be a quick learner.

    >or you can help yourself - http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp
    >http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/


    That's a pretty basic site. I was working at that level a couple of
    months ago when I started. I can Google up more specific help, but
    sometimes a few specific pointers can be helpful for a specific
    question. It saves me some time and allows me to reply to surly,
    puffed-up people with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
    Tony Cooper, Sep 7, 2003
    #6
  7. "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 22:49:13 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >


    <snip drivel>
    >
    > >or you can help yourself - http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp
    > >http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

    >
    > That's a pretty basic site. I was working at that level a couple of
    > months ago when I started. I can Google up more specific help, but
    > sometimes a few specific pointers can be helpful for a specific
    > question. It saves me some time and allows me to reply to surly,
    > puffed-up people with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
    >
    >


    You were working on that level a couple of months ago, eh?
    Then why is it that the snippet you posted here is so fucked up?

    Here are some hints, sparky:

    1. First and foremost, unless you think this is still 1997, you shouldn't be
    dictating presentation via HTML. HTML is for structure and thankfully the
    standards bodies have begun to get control of the problem of idiots abusing
    their creation. They've now begun removing presentational elements and
    attributes from the specification(s) in favor of CSS.
    2. <font> is one such deprecated element.
    3. <th> denotes a table heading. Is this a data table? If so, where are the
    <thead> and <tbody> elements and the appropriate scope/heading attributes?
    4. "height" is a deprecated and mostly unsupported attribute of <td> and
    <th>
    5. If you intend on creating a heading effect with your <font size=6> why
    not be a big boy and use the more appropriate <h1> element?
    6. <font size=3> is the default size of text anyway, so why bother bloating
    the markup with it?
    7. The <blockquote> has a purpose, although I'm sure you're abusing it to
    indent text.
    8. <b> is deprecated. If you wish that section of text to have emphasis,
    use <strong>. If you're trying to create a heading, use the appropriate
    <hx> element. If you just want fat text, use CSS
    9. Remember - despite how basic those links were that I gave you, you're the
    moron who doesn't know where to put your "width" attribute.

    Get your pea brain past these items and you can take the plastic sheets off
    your bed tonight.

    One last note. You said, "I can out-smart-ass you anytime. If you want
    lessons, I'll set a rate for you."

    You need to be *smart* to be a "smart-ass" and I'm afraid you just don't
    qualify.


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 7, 2003
    #7
  8. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 07:19:27 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 22:49:13 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >

    >
    ><snip drivel>
    >>
    >> >or you can help yourself - http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp
    >> >http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

    >>
    >> That's a pretty basic site. I was working at that level a couple of
    >> months ago when I started. I can Google up more specific help, but
    >> sometimes a few specific pointers can be helpful for a specific
    >> question. It saves me some time and allows me to reply to surly,
    >> puffed-up people with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You were working on that level a couple of months ago, eh?
    >Then why is it that the snippet you posted here is so fucked up?


    If you would have read the post, the snippet was intended only to list
    the order of instructions so I could ask where - in that order - a
    particular tag should be.

    Here's an example of what I do:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2555283933&category=20114&rd=1

    As I stated in another post, I only use HTML to prepare eBay ads. An
    eBay ad has a shelf life of 7 days, it has to be concise and present
    the information so the viewer takes it all in at once, and it
    shouldn't be distracting in either layout or content. Simple is best.

    >Here are some hints, sparky:
    >
    >1. First and foremost, unless you think this is still 1997, you shouldn't be
    >dictating presentation via HTML. HTML is for structure and thankfully the
    >standards bodies have begun to get control of the problem of idiots abusing
    >their creation. They've now begun removing presentational elements and
    >attributes from the specification(s) in favor of CSS.


    It's best to know what someone is trying to do before you pontificate.
    CSS has its place, but simple HTML works for 30-40 line presentations
    with a couple of graphics, some text, and no links or buttons. I may
    have 20 or 30 of these up at once, and in 7 days they're history.
    They are only viewed by, maybe, 75 people.

    >2. <font> is one such deprecated element.
    >3. <th> denotes a table heading. Is this a data table? If so, where are the
    ><thead> and <tbody> elements and the appropriate scope/heading attributes?
    >4. "height" is a deprecated and mostly unsupported attribute of <td> and
    ><th>


    The other post said that tables work best for what I do. I set up a
    template, pop the appropriate image (with the image done to the same
    dimensions (480 px wide by x high) for one, and 480 by 200 for the
    smaller one) in the appropriate row and data, change a bit of copy in
    one data place, and use boilerplate in the second. Each ad has the
    same appearance.

    >5. If you intend on creating a heading effect with your <font size=6> why
    >not be a big boy and use the more appropriate <h1> element?


    I don't know the difference. A "why" would be required for me to
    change.

    >6. <font size=3> is the default size of text anyway, so why bother bloating
    >the markup with it?


    Bloat with 40 lines?

    >7. The <blockquote> has a purpose, although I'm sure you're abusing it to
    >indent text.


    It works. I don't know of a different way. It shortens the text
    line, makes the copy more readable, and gives me margins. If there's
    a better way, with a "why" attached", I'll try it.

    >8. <b> is deprecated. If you wish that section of text to have emphasis,
    >use <strong>. If you're trying to create a heading, use the appropriate
    ><hx> element. If you just want fat text, use CSS


    >9. Remember - despite how basic those links were that I gave you, you're the
    >moron who doesn't know where to put your "width" attribute.


    Yep. I missed that part. The image dictates the width of the table.
    I don't like constraining the image by dimensions (480 x 280) or
    (=50%) so I crop the image in Photoshop7 to the size I want to use.

    I use a 1024 x 768 resolution on my screen, but I was looking for a
    way to make sure my ad doesn't distort for someone with an 800 x 600
    resolution.

    >Get your pea brain past these items and you can take the plastic sheets off
    >your bed tonight.


    >One last note. You said, "I can out-smart-ass you anytime. If you want
    >lessons, I'll set a rate for you."
    >
    >You need to be *smart* to be a "smart-ass" and I'm afraid you just don't
    >qualify.


    Smart's a relative thing. I'm smart enough to know that I need to
    find out what someone wants to do before I start spouting off. You
    want to give directions for a month long safari when someone just
    wants to find the closest grocery store.

    I'm smart enough to know that HTML and CSS are merely tools and you
    don't need a bulldozer to dig a hole deep enough to bury a teacup in
    it. Complicated is not better when simple works.

    These are gaps in your smarts that probably match the gaps in your
    smile.

    Now, if you want to offer improvements on what I actually do, based on
    the sample I've offered, I'd appreciate it. If not, go on back to the
    mirror and admire yourself.

    Alt.html is not a help forum. I know this. However, many of the
    postings are questions about how to do something. I'm not asking to
    be taught HTML or CSS, but asking about some specific things. Some
    people do like to provide answers. I'm looking for that type of
    person, and not someone that wants to brag about his day job and imply
    he's an expert in some field.




    ..
    Tony Cooper, Sep 7, 2003
    #8
  9. EightNineThree wrote:
    > 8. <b> is deprecated.


    Is it? For what specification. Last I checked (20 seconds ago) it was
    not deprecated in HTML 4 Strict.

    > If you wish that section of text to have emphasis, use <strong>.


    As has been discussed elsewhere (CIWAS for one), <i> and <b> have
    legitimate uses which do not include emphasis.

    --
    Joel.
    Joel Shepherd, Sep 7, 2003
    #9
  10. "Joel Shepherd" <> wrote in message
    news:EjL6b.2711$...
    > EightNineThree wrote:
    > > 8. <b> is deprecated.

    >
    > Is it? For what specification. Last I checked (20 seconds ago) it was
    > not deprecated in HTML 4 Strict.
    >


    You're correct. I made an assumption based on the fact that so many similar
    elements and attributes have been deprecated.

    > > If you wish that section of text to have emphasis, use <strong>.

    >
    > As has been discussed elsewhere (CIWAS for one), <i> and <b> have
    > legitimate uses which do not include emphasis.


    What possible purposes could <b> have? I see these three possibilities
    1. Emphasis - in which case <strong> is better
    2. (incorrect) Defining text as a header - in which case, the proper heading
    element should be used
    3. Just plain old fat text - in which case, CSS is more appropriate.


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 7, 2003
    #10
  11. EightNineThree wrote:
    > "Joel Shepherd" <> wrote in message
    > news:EjL6b.2711$...
    >
    >> EightNineThree wrote:
    >>
    >> As has been discussed elsewhere (CIWAS for one), <i> and <b> have
    >> legitimate uses which do not include emphasis.

    >
    > What possible purposes could <b> have?


    Here's the thread, which deals primarily with <i>, if anyone's interested:

    <http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=Xns93B9937ABBC09rock13com%4024.48.107.54&rnum=1&prev=/&frame=on>

    For <b> ... Had to think about that. One example might be in a
    reference document about a programming. One common convention is for
    reserved words to be presented in bold. The argument -- identical to
    the one in the thread above -- is that the bolding the word *is*
    semantically important, as it denotes keyword usage. "for", as in "for
    (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)", is very different from "for pete's sake,
    stop cracking your knuckles!" "For foreach is frequently preferred to
    for for foreach can take advantage of an optimized iterator
    implementation." To make any sense of that, you need to know that
    second "for" is a language keyword: it's a semantically important bit
    of text.

    > Just plain old fat text - in which case, CSS is more appropriate.


    But you do need to ask *why* the text is fat, not to mention plain and
    old.

    The problem with <span> in this case is that <span> simply denotes
    "this is inline data". <i> and <b> are not much better, except they
    can indicate "this data is semantically significant but there is no
    adequate markup for it".

    All that said ... I just reread the HTML spec on <span> and was
    surprised to see:

    "Since HTML does not include elements that identify objects such as
    "client", "telephone number", "email address", etc., we use DIV and
    SPAN to achieve the desired structural and presentational effects."

    That -- using span and div to achieve "structural", as in semantically
    significant, effects -- is news to me.

    Too bad the spec doesn't offer similar commentary for <b> and <i>. But
    I stand by my argument above.

    --
    Joel.
    Joel Shepherd, Sep 7, 2003
    #11
  12. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:53:24 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    <> wrote:

    >> Here's an example of what I do:
    >>

    >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2555283933&category=20114&rd=1
    >>
    >> As I stated in another post, I only use HTML to prepare eBay ads. An
    >> eBay ad has a shelf life of 7 days, it has to be concise and present
    >> the information so the viewer takes it all in at once, and it
    >> shouldn't be distracting in either layout or content. Simple is best.

    >
    >Simple is always best, regardless of the purpose of the page.
    >Therefore, <h1> is more simple, more correct, and even less effort than
    ><font size=6>


    So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
    type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
    is a few keystrokes shorter?

    >Since you create so many of these, and do them so often, you'd be best
    >advised to learn how to make it right.


    Watch my lips. I use a couple of templates and just change a few
    items.

    I note that you say I don't do it "right", but can't find anything to
    say that is wrong.

    >> The other post said that tables work best for what I do. I set up a
    >> template, pop the appropriate image (with the image done to the same
    >> dimensions (480 px wide by x high) for one, and 480 by 200 for the
    >> smaller one) in the appropriate row and data, change a bit of copy in
    >> one data place, and use boilerplate in the second. Each ad has the
    >> same appearance.

    >
    >"Tables work best" when it is only tables that you (barely) know.


    Yep. You'd like to say they don't work, but you can't find anything
    that doesn't get the job done. You're just hand-waving.

    ><h1> says: "This is the primary heading for this document"


    And the benefit is.....? You were confused by the lack of a
    designated primary heading in an ad that fits on a single screen?

    ><font size=6> says: "These are some really big words"


    No, it says this is a larger font size than <font size= 3>. Works as
    well on short words as it does on big words.


    >> >6. <font size=3> is the default size of text anyway, so why bother

    >bloating
    >> >the markup with it?

    >>
    >> Bloat with 40 lines?

    >
    >Yes.
    >
    >
    >> >7. The <blockquote> has a purpose, although I'm sure you're abusing it to
    >> >indent text.

    >>
    >> It works. I don't know of a different way. It shortens the text
    >> line, makes the copy more readable, and gives me margins. If there's
    >> a better way, with a "why" attached", I'll try it.

    >
    ><p style="margin: 35px"> does the same thing and it is structurally correct.


    You're good at this? You think? <blockquote> formats until
    </blockquote>. Your suggestion has to be repeated each paragraph.
    You just got through whining about bloat, and you want to add a line
    for each paragraph?

    >In fact, the effect you're trying to create (using the example above) would
    >probably be best handled by padding.


    Yeah, I could. I could use six, or I could use half-a-dozen.

    Look....I don't want to come in here and get into an argument when all
    I wanted was an answer to a simple question. This is your turf, not
    mine. But, you started out in full asshole mode, you haven't offered
    a suggestion that's worth anything (except two ways to make type look
    big), what you have offered is inconsistent, and you make vague
    hand-waving statements like "structurally correct". Why do you
    bother?
    Tony Cooper, Sep 8, 2003
    #12
  13. "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:53:24 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Here's an example of what I do:
    > >>

    >
    >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2555283933&category=2011

    4&rd=1
    > >>
    > >> As I stated in another post, I only use HTML to prepare eBay ads. An
    > >> eBay ad has a shelf life of 7 days, it has to be concise and present
    > >> the information so the viewer takes it all in at once, and it
    > >> shouldn't be distracting in either layout or content. Simple is best.

    > >
    > >Simple is always best, regardless of the purpose of the page.
    > >Therefore, <h1> is more simple, more correct, and even less effort than
    > ><font size=6>

    >
    > So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
    > type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
    > is a few keystrokes shorter?


    My high paid day job revolves around more than hocking silverware on EBay,
    you can bet on that.
    I manage the online corporate identity and e-commerce efforts of one of the
    largest credit unions in the United States.

    You must be confused about your role in this exchange.
    You've come to this newsgroup to ask a question about HTML.
    You've gotten information about how to author correct HTML.
    If you do not want correct information, but would rather use hackish
    workarounds, then go back to using your apparent trial-and-error method of
    learning.

    Some people care about doing things the right way. It is quite apparent that
    you do not fit that description.


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
    EightNineThree, Sep 8, 2003
    #13
  14. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 21:07:48 -0400, "EightNineThree"
    <> wrote:

    >> So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
    >> type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
    >> is a few keystrokes shorter?

    >
    >My high paid day job revolves around more than hocking silverware on EBay,
    >you can bet on that.


    Nor does mine. I'm selling things I've inherited from three
    generations of pack rats and antique collectors. I've given my
    married children what they want, and I'm having an "on-line garage
    sale" to clear out the rest.

    >I manage the online corporate identity and e-commerce efforts of one of the
    >largest credit unions in the United States.


    How come you don't give out toasters any more? That e-commerce
    thing....spam? You work for a Nigerian credit union?

    >You must be confused about your role in this exchange.
    >You've come to this newsgroup to ask a question about HTML.
    >You've gotten information about how to author correct HTML.


    Not from you. I did receive some help, but if you were capable of it
    you managed to conceal it.

    >If you do not want correct information, but would rather use hackish
    >workarounds, then go back to using your apparent trial-and-error method of
    >learning.


    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still noted is that the only hackish error you
    could find is not using Big Type On The Screen, Alternate #2.

    >Some people care about doing things the right way. It is quite apparent that
    >you do not fit that description.


    Some people have something useful to offer, and some people just strut
    around saying nothing like it means something.
    Tony Cooper, Sep 8, 2003
    #14
  15. Tony Cooper

    Chris Morris Guest

    Joel Shepherd <> writes:
    > For <b> ... Had to think about that. One example might be in a
    > reference document about a programming. One common convention is for
    > reserved words to be presented in bold. The argument -- identical to
    > the one in the thread above -- is that the bolding the word *is*
    > semantically important, as it denotes keyword usage. "for", as in "for
    > (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)", is very different from "for pete's sake,
    > stop cracking your knuckles!" "For foreach is frequently preferred to
    > for for foreach can take advantage of an optimized iterator
    > implementation." To make any sense of that, you need to know that
    > second "for" is a language keyword: it's a semantically important bit
    > of text.


    Yes, though I wouldn't use <b> for that.

    For <code>foreach</code> is frequently preferred to <code>for</code>
    for <code>foreach</code> can ...

    Actually, I think my preferred solution would be to reword the
    sentence so that it made more sense anyway. Neither <b> nor <code> is
    guaranteed to be displayed differently, after all. IMO, if the text
    alone isn't clear, adding markup to clarify it doesn't solve the
    problem, it just masks it for some users.

    <code><b>for</b> (;;)</code> I think is a good way of doing syntax
    highlighting, though. Given that this sort of thing may often be
    viewed in text mode (anyone know a CSS-capable text browser - I
    haven't found one yet), I think I prefer <b> to <span
    style="font-weight: bold;"> (or id/class equivalents).

    --
    Chris
    Chris Morris, Sep 8, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dean H. Saxe
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,027
    Dean H. Saxe
    Jan 3, 2004
  2. Rob Nicholson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    722
    Rob Nicholson
    May 28, 2005
  3. Ranganath

    Custom Tags within Custom Tags.

    Ranganath, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    454
    Ranganath
    Oct 21, 2003
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    871
    Michael Borgwardt
    Jan 9, 2004
  5. Stephan Kämper
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    232
    Stephan Kämper
    Jan 18, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page