Re: missing principle

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:44:27 +0200, Mike Schinkel 
> <> 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 -

Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 08:11:42 UTC