Does it take a geek....

[straycat]

To find this website funny? I think it's hilarious, but it's quite possible that makes me quite sad.... :whistle:

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2008/03/funny-pictures-kittens-code.jpg (http://icanhascheezburger.com)
iCanHasCheezburgers (http://icanhascheezburger.com)

[Kel_Warminster]

To find this website funny? I think it's hilarious, but it's quite possible that makes me quite sad.... :whistle:


iCanHasCheezburgers (http://icanhascheezburger.com)

I thought it was good for a giggle...does that make me just as bad as you hun? :nice:

Thanks for sharing :rofl:

[David Franklin]

Also...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lolcats-funny-pictures-blink.jpg

[DundeeDancer]

I don't get it, I've failed the geek test :tears:...
seems just like a cute kitten joke to me on: 2/1 and 1/1 :confused:

[David Franklin]

I don't get it, I've failed the geek test :tears:...
seems just like a cute kitten joke to me on: 2/1 and 1/1 :confused:If you are using HTML, <i> and </i> are the tags for putting something in italics. Does that make it funnier?

[Of course, I suspect I know the answer to that question...]

[DundeeDancer]

If you are using HTML, <i> and </i> are the tags for putting something in italics. Does that make it funnier?
Thanks, at least I "get it" now. :nice:

Seeing as I'm meant to be an IT consultant it not good I didn't get it right away, :blush:
*whimper* I'm away to play with my rich client tool now, this tag / internet thing will never catch on :rolleyes:

[killingtime]

If you are using HTML, <i> and </i> are the tags for putting something in italics.

Use <em>, people :rolleyes:.

[Dreadful Scathe]

lolz catz are blocked here - they are funny though :)

[David Franklin]

Use <em>, people :rolleyes:.I'm no HTML expert, but my understanding is that if you want italics you use <i>, if you want to indicate emphasis, you use <em>. <em> is conventionally rendered using italics, but doesn't have to be.

So if you definitely want italics, as is obviously the case here, then you should use <i>, not <em>.

[killingtime]

I'm no HTML expert, but my understanding is that if you want italics you use <i>, if you want to indicate emphasis, you use <em>. <em> is conventionally rendered using italics, but doesn't have to be.

Well the W3C are in favour of deprecating <i> and <b> as they have direct typeface meaning rather than <em> and <strong> that don't (though I'd debate <strong> myself). If someone is using a screen reader the note to emphasize something is meaningful, the note to make it italic is not (unless it goes "start italic 'some thing' end italic" I guess). But you are correct in using them anyway as I don't think it is until XHTML 1.1 they are deprecated (I'd look it up but apparently the W3C has blocked us :what: ) and I'm not sure we'll ever see that really being used on the Internet (let alone XHTML 2.0).

[dep]

Well the W3C are in favour of deprecating <i> and <b> as they have direct typeface meaning rather than <em> and <strong> that don't (though I'd debate <strong> myself). If someone is using a screen reader the note to emphasize something is meaningful, the note to make it italic is not (unless it goes "start italic 'some thing' end italic" I guess). But you are correct in using them anyway as I don't think it is until XHTML 1.1 they are deprecated (I'd look it up but apparently the W3C has blocked us :what: ) and I'm not sure we'll ever see that really being used on the Internet (let alone XHTML 2.0).What?:confused::worthy:

[ducasi]

I'm no HTML expert, but my understanding is that if you want italics you use <i>, if you want to indicate emphasis, you use <em>. <em> is conventionally rendered using italics, but doesn't have to be.

So if you definitely want italics, as is obviously the case here, then you should use <i>, not <em>.
Shouldn't you be using Catscading Style Sheets?

[Rachel]

Well the W3C are in favour of deprecating <i> and <b> as they have direct typeface meaning rather than <em> and <strong> that don't (though I'd debate <strong> myself). If someone is using a screen reader the note to emphasize something is meaningful, the note to make it italic is not (unless it goes "start italic 'some thing' end italic" I guess). But you are correct in using them anyway as I don't think it is until XHTML 1.1 they are deprecated (I'd look it up but apparently the W3C has blocked us :what: ) and I'm not sure we'll ever see that really being used on the Internet (let alone XHTML 2.0).


What?:confused::worthy:I believe Gary's talking accessibility issues for blind and partially sighted people.

If something's marked with an emphasis tag, that can be understood by anyone, even if they can't see the screen. However, what do italics and bolds really mean to someone who has never seen print?

And how often are italics and bold used merely for decorative purposes - to make the text 'look' pretty - rather than to emphasise a point?

Rachel

[David Franklin]

I believe Gary's talking accessibility issues for blind and partially sighted people.

And how often are italics and bold used merely for decorative purposes - to make the text 'look' pretty - rather than to emphasise a point?I'd be the first to admit that I overuse bold for emphasis; ironically enough, partly because I find the visual difference between normal and italic text small enough that I often don't notice it.

Nonetheless, often people use <i> tags precisely because they really do mean italics. The original post is a case in point: it's a visual gag based on <I> </I> tags causing everything between them to be sloped to the right as with italics. So it makes no sense to say "should have been <em> tags instead".

[Twirly]

What?:confused::worthy:

:yeah:

Can't we just have more cute kitten pictures please?! :flower:

[dep]

:yeah:

Can't we just have more cute kitten pictures please?! :flower:there's already 233pages of the cuties.
Go salivate.

ps,
does [em] work on this site?

[killingtime]

And how often are italics and bold used merely for decorative purposes - to make the text 'look' pretty - rather than to emphasise a point?

Of course they shouldn't be. Which is why <i> is being removed as anything that is just style should be all part of the CSS.


So it makes no sense to say "should have been <em> tags instead".

Sorry my reply was really just a slight gag based around popular web standard opinions :flower:.


does [em] work on this site?

Nah, but then that's BBCode not HTML.


Shouldn't you be using Catscading Style Sheets?

Of course! But you should still use <em> rather than <span style="font-style: italic"> as the former is semantically meaningful but the latter is not. If you like you could do something like

em
{
color: pink;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;
}

to have some nice bold pink text that's emphasized rather than the usual browser choice of rendering it in italics.

[David Franklin]

Of course they shouldn't be. Which is why <i> is being removed as anything that is just style should be all part of the CSS.Do you have an actual cite that <i> is being removed? (It's not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see the official reasoning). I had a look on W3C, the (draft) spec for HTML 5 still has <i> in there:


The <i> element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, a thought, a ship name, or some other prose whose typical typographic presentation is italicized.

The i element should be used as a last resort when no other element is more appropriate. In particular, citations should use the <cite> element, defining instances of terms should use the <dfn> element, stress emphasis should use the <em> element, importance should be denoted with the <strong> element, quotes should be marked up with the <q> element, and small print should use the <small> element.

Even if <i> were to be deprecated, that is a far cry from it being made obsolete. And my understanding is that it would have to be made obsolete in order for browsers to stop supporting it.


Sorry my reply was really just a slight gag based around popular web standard opinions :flower:.Someone tried to make a similar gag on the ICanHasCheezeburger website:


The and tags in HTML have been deprecated.

The W3C now recommends the use of and instead.How I ROFL'd...


Nah, but then that's BBCode not HTML.In my experience, I know a lot more people who understand BBCode than people who understand HTML, so that's a bit of a problem for anyone wanting to deprecate <i>. That is, they are saying "I want this in italics", not "I want this emphasized", so something that parses [i] into <em> is actually causing semantic confusion, not helping it.


Of course! But you should still use <em> rather than <span style="font-style: italic"> as the former is semantically meaningful but the latter is not.I am absolutely certain that if <em> does replace <i>, a large proportion of the time you see it used, it will be because people want something to appear in italics, not because they want to emphasise it. So it may be semantically meaningful, but most of the time it's going to be semantically wrong, too. Far better, in my mind, to persuade people to use <em> for emphasis which I agree makes sense, but let them still use <i> when they simply want italics.

[Gadget]

And how often are italics and bold used merely for decorative purposes - to make the text 'look' pretty - rather than to emphasise a point?

Rachel
Awwww, you don't have to use bold and italics to look pretty :flower::wink:

[Lou]

Far better, in my mind, to persuade people to use <em> for emphasis which I agree makes sense, but let them still use <i> when they simply want italics.
:yeah: Besides, there's always been a web convention that puts actions in italics, particularly when there are no appropriate smilies available.

*hugs Gary for the M People slight gag*

[killingtime]

Do you have an actual cite that <i> is being removed? (It's not that I doubt you, but I'd like to see the official reasoning). I had a look on W3C, the (draft) spec for HTML 5 still has <i> in there:

It is obsolete in XHTML 2.0 Standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-text.html#s_textmodule) however it doesn't appear to be deprecated in XHTML 1.1 as I originally assumed. HTML 5 is a bit of a throw back for the W3C as XHTML 1.0 was designed to entirely supersede it; I think the prevalence of AJAX was part of that.


And my understanding is that it would have to be made obsolete in order for browsers to stop supporting it.

I doubt you'll ever see browsers stop supporting it. Even if we did all move to XHTML 2.0 they'd probably still keep previous HTML and XHTML backwards compatibility in there.


In my experience, I know a lot more people who understand BBCode than people who understand HTML, so that's a bit of a problem for anyone wanting to deprecate <i>. That is, they are saying "I want this in italics", not "I want this emphasized", so something that parses [i] into <em> is actually causing semantic confusion, not helping it.

Well that's not really a problem. The back end, it would be argued, would probably just give it a <span class="bb_italic"> with the relevant stylesheet. Even Tim Berners-Lee stated that he never actually imagined people hand rolling the code and that's probably the way it should be, if BBCode is a more accessible level then who, other than the developer, cares how the transformation of that code is done?


Far better, in my mind, to persuade people to use <em> for emphasis which I agree makes sense, but let them still use <i> when they simply want italics.

I think the ideology behind all the "futurist" web development is to separate the semantic markup entirely from the rendering. As <i> is considered a rendering instruction then it's been removed. Of course I'd be happy to argue along side you that <i>italics</i> is much more meaningful than <span class="some_random_css_class_that_makes_italics">italics</span> is to both a human and a machine.

There is a good summary article of XHTML 2.0 on IBM's website (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-xhtml/).

[Beowulf]

Can't we just have more cute kitten pictures please?! :flower:

Your wish... (actually I know you could just go there and visit yourself..but I particularly liked these few)

http://www.thelicious.co.uk/images/lol/funny-1.jpg

http://www.thelicious.co.uk/images/lol/funny-2.jpg

http://www.thelicious.co.uk/images/lol/funny-3.jpg

this next one had me choking with tears of laughter.. perhaps it's the Thespian in me that liked it so much. (ok so it's NOT a cat!!)

http://www.thelicious.co.uk/images/lol/funny-4.jpg

:rofl:

[David Franklin]

It is obsolete in XHTML 2.0 Standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-text.html#s_textmodule) however it doesn't appear to be deprecated in XHTML 1.1 as I originally assumed. HTML 5 is a bit of a throw back for the W3C as XHTML 1.0 was designed to entirely supersede it.I confess I wasn't aware of that - I thought XHTML was supposed to be a parallel/augmented standard, not a replacement.


I doubt you'll ever see browsers stop supporting it. Even if we did all move to XHTML 2.0 they'd probably still keep previous HTML and XHTML backwards compatibility in there. Without excessively prolonging the discussion (and boy, have we confirmed the 'geek' question with these posts!), looking at the XHTML spec I think it pretty unthinkable it will replace HTML anytime soon. It's the "hand-rolling" thing you mention: I think being able to hand-roll HTML by hand is still very important, and it seems to me far more difficult to do that with XHTML.

Thanks for the informative post though - lots of stuff I didn't know...

[ducasi]

Shouldn't you be using Catscading Style Sheets?
Was the Catscading Styles Sheets quip too subtle, or did just no-one find it funny? :sad:

[killingtime]

Was the Catscading Styles Sheets quip too subtle, or did just no-one find it funny? :sad:

Totally missed it, sorry.


I confess I wasn't aware of that - I thought XHTML was supposed to be a parallel/augmented standard, not a replacement.

Obviously not the only one as HTML 4.0 was the last one... and here's the fifth version ;). Basically they took HTML and orphaned it from SGML and re-hammered it into XML for XHTML 1.0. XHTML 2.0 is the first one the seriously branches from the way HTML used to look; and I think they are going to have a tough time convincing Mozilla and Opera to even think about supporting it; let alone Microsoft.

[straycat]

:yeah:

Can't we just have more cute kitten pictures please?! :flower:
If you insist...
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-kitten-car-seat1.jpg

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-cat-balances-basketball.jpg

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-lolcat-seeds-kittens-handful.jpg

[Twirly]

Your wish... (actually I know you could just go there and visit yourself..but I particularly liked these few)



If you insist...

Aw, very cute, thanks guys :awe: :D