Ticket #892 (wontfix bug)
Parser mistakes 'b' and 'i' with 'strong' and 'em'
- Created: 2013-08-21 16:37:15
- Reported by: Studio384
- Assigned to: Studio384
- Milestone: 1.6
- Component: parser
- Priority: normal
By design, the parser replaces the b-BBCode tag and the i-BBCode tag with the strong-HTML tag and the em-HTML tag, respectivly. However, when you do follow the rules, this is technicaly wrong.
B means bold, but STRONG doesn't means bold, browser could also render this as italic or underlined, etc. The same for I that italic means, but EM doesn't mean italic. The b-BBCode tag should be replaced by the b-HTML tag, idem dito for the i-BBCode tag that should be replaced with the i-HTML tag.
Franz 2013-08-21 19:12:24
Show me a browser that doesn't render them the normal way, though.
I believe the original reason was to use them because they actually have semantic meaning, too...
Nontheless, I actually agree, people use them for formatting mostly, not because they care about semantics. We can change it in 2.0.
Studio384 2013-08-21 20:35:27
I can't give an example, but it doesn't change the fact that it's technical wrong.
Otomatic 2013-08-26 13:20:23
Tags <i>...</i> and <b>...</b> are neither obsolete nor discouraged nor impaired or prohibited in both HTML 4.01 Strict XHTML 1.0 Strict.
<i> Indicates italic
<b> Indicates bolding
<em> Indicates highlighted (emphasis added)
<strong> Indicates a set highlight stronger (capacity)
Contrary to what some would have us believe, each of the above tags is valid XHTML 1.0 strict.
Where the worries and confusion begin is that browsers have generally adopted italics for <em> tag and bolding for <strong> tag. However, this conventional choice of browsers not based on any established rule: in the future, they may well decide to display <strong> with enlarged character size and <em> with a left indent, or anything else.
The argument is that the tags <i> and <b> provide no meaning (semantics) to document unlike <strong> and <em> elements that are highlighted. But we must understand that italics and bolding does not necessarily mean that the text should be more important. If this is often the case, we should not think that the tags are equivalent.
That is why I will continue to use, in some cases, <i> and <b> tags and not replace them systematically by <em> and <strong> tags. These four tags have various functions depending on the context.
I would see it in FluxBB 2, but is safe to use HTML tags as bbcode?
Studio384 2013-08-27 08:33:28
This is about the HTML code that replaces the BBCode during parsing.
I know what it is, so I'm not dumb. But is it safe to give html bbcode
Otomatic 2013-08-29 08:19:24
No, it is not safe to allow HTML in posts.
What I meant is that it should not always translate BBcode tags [ i]...[ /i] by HTML tags <em>...</em> and so on for tags ....
<i>, <b>, <em> and <strong> are four separate entities.
Studio384 2014-02-05 18:41:50
- Owner Studio384 removed.
- Status changed from open to invalid.
Studio384 2014-03-26 13:25:35
- Owner set to Studio384.
- Status changed from invalid to open.
you could remove [ b] and [ i] and add [ strong] and [ em] but that's not very user friendly ( since everybody expects to use [ b] for strong and [ i] for emphase )
Studio384 2014-03-29 19:41:27
I stands for italics. Anyway, that's not the point, the b-tag in BBCode should be represented with a b-tag in HTML, as the BBCode b-tag means bold., not strong Idem dito for i.
then if the usage for old italic is replaced by blue dashed underline, you want every fluxbb installation to replace all their [ i] tag by a new [ blue-dashed-underline] tag which would be replaced by <em>
and if html5 comes arround ( which add semantic to <b> and <i> tag ), you will use <span class="italic_format"> as replacement instead of <i> ?
Franz 2014-11-04 09:51:39
- Milestone set to 2.0-alpha3.
Franz 2015-06-26 09:56:56
- Milestone changed from 2.0-alpha3 to 1.6.
Franz 2018-07-18 09:23:04
- Status changed from open to wontfix.
Changed my mind. Using strong and em is helpful in terms of accessibility.