Bug 56400

Summary:

strong and b should be font-weight: bold, not bolder

Product:

WebKit

Reporter:

Aryeh Gregor <ayg>

Component:

CSS

Assignee:

Nobody <webkit-unassigned>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

Severity:

Minor

CC:

bzbarsky, cmarcelo, hyatt, ian, mitz, phiw2, rniwa, shanestephens, simon.fraser, webkit.review.bot

Priority:

Keywords:

EasyFix

Version:

528+ (Nightly build)

Hardware:

All

OS:

All

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Patch	none

Aryeh Gregor

Reported 2011-03-15 12:07:44 PDT

HTML5 says b and strong have font-weight: bold instead of bolder: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html#fonts-and-colors Some discussion about this can be found at the following HTML5 and Mozilla bugs: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12154 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589124 Mozilla received reports that some sites displayed incorrectly when Firefox 4 (with DirectWrite enabled on Windows) started actually respecting font-weights higher than 700, because they accidentally nested <b> tags and the text inadvertently became too bold. font-weight: bolder is inherently inconsistent across browsers and so shouldn't be the default style, IMO. Currently all browsers but Opera make b and strong font-weight: bolder, but in practice this is usually not observable because font-weights of 700, 800, and 900 generally get the same fonts assigned to them anyway. So changing to font-weight: bold is likely to increase compatibility, not decrease it. Test-case to demonstrate that the default is font-weight: bolder: data:text/html,<!doctype html> <p style=font-weight:100> <b>Should be bold per HTML5</b> Chrome 11 dev does not display the text bold.

Attachments
Patch (18.44 KB, patch) 2011-06-30 14:29 PDT, Wyatt Carss	no flags	Details Formatted Diff Diff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.

Shane Stephens

Comment 1 2011-03-20 20:44:48 PDT

Clearly either we should fix this in WebKit or the spec should change.

Wyatt Carss

Comment 2 2011-06-30 14:29:51 PDT

Created attachment 99366 [details] Patch

Ryosuke Niwa

Comment 3 2011-09-14 21:55:35 PDT

Comment on attachment 99366 [details] Patch Looks sane to me.

WebKit Review Bot

Comment 4 2011-12-21 15:58:20 PST

Comment on attachment 99366 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 99366 Committed r103468: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/103468>

WebKit Review Bot

Comment 5 2011-12-21 15:58:25 PST

All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.

Boris Zbarsky

Comment 6 2012-01-04 12:02:56 PST

For what it's worth, generally if the spec disagrees with _all_ implementations it's the spec that should change, not the implementations. Or so it seems to me. Note that this was explicitly a part of the spec flagged as being buggy, so I'm not sure why the WebKit behavior got changed to follow it...

Ryosuke Niwa

Comment 7 2012-01-31 21:19:57 PST

(In reply to comment #6) > For what it's worth, generally if the spec disagrees with _all_ implementations it's the spec that should change, not the implementations. Or so it seems to me. > > Note that this was explicitly a part of the spec flagged as being buggy, so I'm not sure why the WebKit behavior got changed to follow it... Using font-weight: bolder as the default style of strong/b is problematic at best (e.g. when you nest b's and strong's) inside contenteditable region so I'm glad we changed our behavior.

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson

Comment 8 2012-12-09 21:54:52 PST

Spec has been changed to say 'bolder', so this no longer matches the spec.

Ryosuke Niwa

Comment 9 2013-02-03 18:15:53 PST

(In reply to comment #8) > Spec has been changed to say 'bolder', so this no longer matches the spec. The value "bolder" is too troublesome for editing purposes. I don't think we'll change back.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.