How much is the existing article markup going to remain the same?

[jensimmons]

As noted in another issue, I'm looking at the markup of the main content on this page: https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/docs/elements

Hm.

The <p> tags aren't nested properly in places. And both <b> and <strong> are being used in ways that aren't quite correct semantically. And images are marked-up with extraneous divs that we don't need.

How much will there be a chance to clean stuff like this up in the conversion? Or is this markup something consistent and universal that we should support with the new CSS, and just live with? Or is it something that we'll have to live with, but that isn't standardized across pages / not something to "support" because there are a lot of little inconsistent errors created manually over years…

Ah, life. And pickiness.

[ebidel]

cc @Meggin

[jensimmons]

Here's an example of some trouble:

The chrome.com link color is black. With body text of grey.

So then, in the new design, these bolded text elements are black, and look just like the links.

I think it'd be best for there not to be random words bolded in the text. If emphasis is needed then you can use <em>, and that will visually display as italic.

Or what do you think, Chrome team?

[ebidel]

@peterlubbers can we flag links being black asap?

[ebidel]

I hate that links moved from blue -> black. You don't know what is what and
subheadings are looking exactly like links. I'm surprised we didn't catch
this today.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Jen Simmons notifications@github.comwrote:

Here's an example of some trouble:

The chrome.com link color is black. With body text of grey.

So then, in the new design, these bolded text elements are black, and look
just like the links.

[image: developers chrome com 2013-11-12 18-49-06]https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/108474/1527421/0333446e-4bf5-11e3-85f1-36b1b3cc8b3b.png

I think it'd be best for there not to be random words bolded in the text.
If emphasis is needed then you can use , and that will visually display
as italic.

Or what do you think, Chrome team?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/2#issuecomment-28346839
.

[jensimmons]

Yeah, I agree, actually. Links being black might work great on a product promo website, where the content is very sparse and there's rarely an inline link. But for documentation, it really makes the links blend in. A blue might be much better.

[peterlubbers]

Sent mail about it to Zhu

Peter Lubbers
Author, Pro HTML5 Programming
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/143023864X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=143023864X&linkCode=as2&tag=rulata-20,
2nd Edition (Apress, 2011)
Twitter https://twitter.com/peterlubbers |
G+https://plus.google.com/u/0/112811650518962267774|
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterlubbers |
SFHTML5http://www.sfhtml5.org/

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Eric Bidelman notifications@github.comwrote:

@peterlubbers https://github.com/peterlubbers can we flag links being
black asap?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/2#issuecomment-28347169
.