- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:11:21 -0400
- 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 other.) > 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://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 08:11:42 UTC