- From: Christopher Healey <deezignink@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 22:02:21 +0800
- To: Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes@stommepoes.nl>, Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
hgroup was perfect for just this circumstance. -Christopher On May 7, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes@stommepoes.nl> wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:52:09AM -0400, Denis Boudreau wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I do like Steve's proposal using an existing element in h1 to create some sort of a hierarchy. But I must admit that the first thing that came to mind when reading Steve's proposal for <strong>, I wondered why the proposal wasn't for <small>. So depending on whether you want the smaller heading above or below the larger one, we could do either of the following: >> >> <h1> >> <small>Breaking News</small> >> Steve Faulkner had this crazy idea! >> </h1> >> >> <h1> >> Breaking News >> <small>Steve Faulkner had this crazy idea!</small> >> </h1> >> >> /Denis >> > > Of the two, I like the second one better. Small has always meant > "sub" in my mind, read out loud differently like legal text and > under-the-breath mutters. First example makes much less sense, since > if you just want a styling sandbag, span makes more sense. > > -Mallory >
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 14:02:58 UTC