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

Re: missing principle

From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:11:21 -0400
Message-ID: <463301A9.1000505@mikeschinkel.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:44:27 +0200, Mike Schinkel 
> <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com> wrote:
>> Smylers wrote:
>>> <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>.
>> True, but the important point is that a UA can never be sure why the 
>> author used it so it can't be trusted as a semantic element.
> That argument goes for *any* element.

Actually, it is not true for any element.  Some elements, such as <em> 
are almost never used except when the user wants to emphasize.  <small> 
could be used to indicate "fine print" or it could be used to just 
because (like for copyright, or for links meant to give search engines a 
pathway to other pages), and there isn't much to indicate which is by 
far more likely (I'd argue neither is significantly more likely than the 

> So I'm not sure it should be considered much.
Not sure what should be considered much?  The value of semantic markup 
since not 100% of content markup can be trusted for semantics?

-Mike Schinkel
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 08:11:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC