Also "<b>: The Bring Attention To element"
Or are these actually becoming official standard names?
I'm truly enjoying the sheer absurdity of it all.
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics....
> B: Renders as bold text style.
The element (and other style-related elements) were deprecated due to CSS. For b and i the strong and em elements were created as semantic alternatives. Now the b and i elements have been given specific semantic usage and are now not deprecated.
From https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.... (with _ added for the relevant section used by MDN):
> The b element represents a span of text _to which attention is being drawn_ for utilitarian purposes without conveying any extra importance and with no implication of an alternate voice or mood, such as key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, actionable words in interactive text-driven software, or an article lede.
From https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.... (with _ added for the relevant section used by MDN):
> The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose in a manner indicating a different quality of text, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, _an idiomatic phrase_ from another language, transliteration, a thought, or a ship name in Western texts.
Deprecated, but it will be back.
> The u element represents a span of text with an unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt.
> The <strong> element represents text of certain importance, <em> puts some emphasis on the text and the <mark> element represents text of certain relevance.
This really confused me. Isn't this all basically the same?
<strong>: The Strong Importance element
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/hr
<hr>: The Thematic Break (Horizontal Rule) element
Looking at stuff like this, I think the results are pretty obvious. Despite the “diversity”, the value of what Mozilla offers hasn’t simply stop increasing, it has now started decreasing and in cases like this actually brings negative value to the internet overall.
This is what firing/alienating the actual people who did the actual job does. And no amount of “diversity” can make up for it.
What a shame. Mozilla used to do so much good.
I'm not really sure what unfair is, though, to answer your question.