W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2007

[whatwg] <BIG> Element

From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:04:39 +0100
Message-ID: <1193763879.17275.23.camel@a1dmin>
Dnia 30-10-2007, wto o godzinie 08:47 +0000, Ian Hickson napisa?(a):

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > 
> > No, you're using a presentational element where a suitable semantic 
> > element already exists.  It is irrelevant that it doesn't have the 
> > default styling that you want from big, but that can be handled with 
> > CSS.  That example should be marked up like this:
> > 
> > <p>I said, "<em>NO!</em>".</p>
> > <p><em>YES!!</em> I will do it!</p>
> > <p><em><em>NO!</em></em> You will not!</p>
> > <p><em><em>YES!!</em></em> I will do it!</p>
> > <p><em><em><em>NO!</em></em></em> You will not!</p>
> > <p><em><em><em>YES!!</em></em></em> I will do it!</p>
> > <p><em><em><em><em>NO!</em></em></em></em> You will not!</p>
> > <p>Oh, alright...</p>
> > 
> > em { font-size: larger; }
> 
> Indeed.
> 

Do EM elements accumulate?  They are idempotent under the default style
sheet because you cannot make an italic typeface more italic.  But do
they accumulate in principle?  If they do, is the default style sheet
correct with respect to the EM element?

Intriguedly,
Chris
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 10:04:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:37 UTC