Re: Cleaning House

Christoph Päper wrote:
> Patrick H. Lauke:
>> So should there be a need for a document containing <small>, for 
>> instance, to pass conformance checks?
> The least thing the specification should do is to list previously valid 
> element and attribute names and call them "reserved". Checkers should 
> ignore them by default.

I believe you misunderstood my sentence there. To rephrase it: if a web 
page contains a <small> element, does it need to pass conformance 
checks? Meaning that browser can keep doing "special" things with those 
elements, but that doesn't mean that they need to be ratified as part of 
the standard and, therefore, pass a validation/conformance check.

> Anyhow, I just remembered I once considered to make a proposal to keep 
> |big| for logographic characters inside alphabetic script, because they 
> are often unreadable in 16px / 12pt.

To me that sounds like an issue that squarely falls in the arena of user 
agent accessibility guidelines, and has *nothing* to do with how a 
content should be marked up in a document...but that's an aside.

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] |
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 22:10:06 UTC