- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:33 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:14 AM > > On 21/05/2013 15:03, Adrian Roselli wrote: > > I like it, but I also think it should suggest against nesting in or > > around <strong> and <em>. Sort of heads off the meta discussion, which > > I think is a valid one. > > Hmm, why? I could imagine that within the whole of a deemphasised > passage, I could - as an author - still want to stress importance of > something...but that it's stressed within the context of the whole > deemphasised part (i.e. it's not a "small makes it important-1, but a nested > strong makes it "important-1+1" i.e. same importance as regular content kind > of hierarchy of importance, more of a "small creates a new importance > context"). Urgh, this is sounding like outline algorithm ;) Yep. That. Neither <strong>, <em>, nor <small> have grades -- they are all or nothing. Nesting *can* imply more (actually, can it?), but without additional styling doesn't amount to any presentation differences. Although seeing this (and the ensuing discussion) could be hilarious: <strong grade="+3">ME! <small grade="-1">Not me, <small grade="-2">probably not me</small>, <small grade="-1">and leave me alone</small></small></small></strong>
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:34:05 UTC