[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


At 07:55 AM 10/26/98 -0500, Doug Loss wrote:
>Nope, I'm still here and paying attention.  Here are a few idle
>thoughts.  Rather than use <I></I> tags you should perhaps use <EM></EM>
>so as to work on those browsers that can't do italics.

I looked into it briefly and basically any browser that can do <EM> should
be able to do <I>. They are both part of the HTML 2 spec. Most browsers
support HTML 4 or greater. The only difference being that <I> is a physical
style tag, and <EM> is a logical tag. Physical tags means that ever browser
should display it the same way. Logical tag means that its up to the web
browser, about how to display the text. Browsers such as Lynx may have
limitation about how logical text styles can be displayed. There is no
other way for a physical style to be interpeted. Bold is bold, italic is
italic, etc.

If you can provide more information, that would be helpful in diagnosing a
potential problems. Until then, maybe you could try the codes below and
tell how they work or don't with some browsers, then we can act on this.

Physical styles:
<b>, <i>, <tt>, <u>, <sub>, <sup>

Logical styles:
<em>, <strong>, <cite>, <code>, <dfn>, <samp>, <kbd>, <var>

>I'd also
>validate the pages through both the W3C validator and perhaps Bobby and

What is the W3C validator? Where and how can it be found and does it work?

>take a look at then via Lynx to make sure they work for folks not using
>one of the "big two" browsers.