|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomaszZielinski
921 days ago
|
|
|
> I don't want <em> or <strong>, and I don't want a "bring attention to" element". I want bold. When I read the above, I thought: you want bold, because you want to highlight a word. Because highlighting a word is a widely recognized way to bring attention to it. And so making it bold is just a tool, it's secondary to the actual goal. I suspect you might not agree with that, but could you point me to the part where I got it wrong from your perspective? |
|
|
Trying to come up with an universal reason for why bold is bold is like trying to come up with an universal formula to explain why any number 42 is 42. You wouldn't say every 42 came from 40 + 2 just because 40 + 2 equals 42, because some 42's come from 44 - 2 and others come from 6 times 7. Similarly, there is no universal reason for bold to be bold except for the fact that it is bold and that is it.
You say bold is used for highlighting. What would you say italic is used for then? And underline? All caps? Small caps? Title case? Colored text? A yellow background on the text? There are countless ways to highlight text.
Do you have the courage to style <strong> as ANYTHING but bold or <em> as anything but italic? (oblique doesn't count!)
No, you do not.
Because in your heart you know. The writer CHOSE bold. He CHOSE italic.
He had all these "highlight" tools in front of him, like a palette of colors, and he specifically and unambiguously picked bold. You can't ever change the meaning of bold to anything but bold, regardless of whether you use <b> as bold or <strong> as bold, because bold is an inseparable part of the content now.
If you changed <strong> to a non-bold red color text, it would change the typographic semantics of everything ever written with <strong>.
So in my view, it's not something abstract like highlight, it's literally bold, in its pure concrete form, because the author had a healthy vision, he spoke a Latin language, and he wanted his text to have bold letters.
I mean, just look at Wordpress and WYSIWYG editors. Nobody in sane mind would write "emphasis" and "important" text unstyled and put those buttons in the editor, because no author would EVER click on them. No author WANTS to mark emphasis or important text. Authors click the B button and the I button because they want bold and italic.
Can you imagine someone looking up Markdown's or restructured text's to find out how to mark "emphasis"? Nobody is writing text or *text* or _text_ or __text__ because they want emphasis. They're looking up which one of these characters generates BOLD text.
What the author means is BOLD. Means. As in meaning, semantics. It makes no sense to second guess what they really mean and change those semantics to emphasis/importance just because you think those are human-language/medium-agnostic and thus more portable. When you change <b> to <strong> what you're doing has a name: semantic bleaching, which happens when a word that had concrete meaning loses its meaning when it starts functioning in a more abstract (grammatical) way. Feels like the opposite of what anyone would want!