- 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>
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