W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: missing principle (small)

From: Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:50:32 -0700
To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C2580488.3122%qstage@cox.net>


Despite my general distaste for "presentational" elements, I do have a
fondness for <small>.

I'd concur that it may/does convey a structural meaning - in the 'small
print' sense, as well as the 'just for looks' use.

-- Dylan Smith

on 4/27/07 3:01 AM, Smylers at Smylers@stripey.com wrote:

> 
> Daniel Glazman writes:
> 
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd like to hear what new presentational elements are needed.
>> 
>> I just wanted to say the existing minimal set ... is good to keep.
>> 
>> On another hand, big and small are bad,
> 
> <small> isn't entirely presentational, in that it _can_ be used to
> indicate 'small print' or something of lesser importance; sort-of an
> opposite of <em>.
> 
> It some text should be small just because the designer has decreed that
> small text there would look nice, then that's presentational (and
> probably should be done in CSS).  But there is meaning in text being
> smaller, it is less important than other text on the page, then it would
> be good for this to be conveyed in the mark-up, not left to a
> presentation layer.
> 
> (The same doesn't really apply to <big>, because there are already
> things like <em> for emphasizing text, and the phrase "big print"
> doesn't really exist; if it means anything it would probably refer
> headlines or similar, which would be better in <h1> or something.)
> 
>> because handling nested big or small elements is painful in an editor.
> 
> I am in no way arguing with that.
> 
> Smylers
> 
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 02:48:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC