5 ms·
If they wanted people to use a different tag for such text, they should have created an idiomatic tag instead of attempting to repurpose existing ones. Adding
by Freebytes 4y ago
If they wanted people to use a different tag for such text, they should have created an idiomatic tag instead of attempting to repurpose existing ones. Adding alternative elements is usually the better solution.
- alwillis 4y agoIf they wanted people to use a different tag for such text, they should have created an idiomatic tag instead of attempting to repurpose existing ones. If you read the spec, it mentions several different uses for <i>, depending on the context. Otherwise, we’d need a different element for each context, bloating the spec by having special purpose elements instead of general ones. For example, <i> is used for ship names: <p>They came over on the <i>Mayflower</i>.</p> It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to have an element just for names of ships in a general purpose markup language like HTML. Turns out, if you look at the Wikipedia article about the Mayflower, the name is marked-up with the <i> element [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower
- runarberg 4y agoI kind of like using <i> for other user’s names that appears in a sentence. For example if a joker calls them self, “you piece of shit” it would be kind of unfortunate for another user to open up a dialog and it says: “Are you sure you want to delete the user you piece of shit?” Now with the user’s name in italics, this is less ambiguous. In general I think many UXs are too shy about using italics.
- maxwelljoslyn 4y agoDialog window: “Are you sure you want to delete the user you piece of shit?” Options: > Yes, you worthless dildosaurus > No! Stop! I hate you!