Not a bug Inconsistent use of <b>, <strong> and no formatting for placeholders

[Jon W]

The following phrase uses <strong> to emphasise the placeholders (which looks best in my opinion):
include_url_token

The following phrase uses <b> (which has slightly different formatting):
field_display_html_description

The following phrases us no formatting:
following_placeholders_will_be_replaced_in_message
following_placeholders_will_be_replaced_in_message_for_conversation
following_placeholders_will_be_replaced_in_message_for_email

There may be others. I just did a search for the word placeholder, but there may be some that don't have the word placeholder in the phrase.

 

[Mike]

I think the markup can vary based on the context of how the data is presented. For example, I think the bold look is reasonable for custom fields based on how it's presented. In terms of most of the placeholders relating to emailing users, that could perhaps go with the "strong" formatting but I don't think it needs to be presented 100% identically because they're mostly not interspersed within a list.