W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Proposed amends to <small> element

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:43:27 -0000
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Ben Millard" <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.unwf6pwhh8on37@bruce-pc>

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:24:17 -0000, Lachlan Hunt  
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:

> The use cases for small was not intended to include large amounts of  
> text in copyright licences, EULAs and contracts.  It's intended for the  
> short copyright notices and other legalese often found in the footers of  
> pages.

Although small was "intended" for short notices, that intention is new and  
only within this draft spec - so presumably can be redefined.

If that intention has somehow achieved sacrosanctity, the spec should say  
"small is for short copyright notices and other legalese often found in  
the footers" (or even be restricted to the <footer> element).

But I don't think the intention of the editor of a draft spec means that  
it is sacrosanct (and I'm certain that Hixie doesn't believe it to be). If  
it is not sacrosanct, then it may very well be redefined.

I suggest that <small> be allowed to surround block level elements,  
because  a list of caveats, or two paragraphs, may legitimately be  
legalese and worthy of the <small> tag.

I think that a spec should avoid arbitarary distinctions such as element x  
is intended only for "short" content; who defines "short"?

Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 11:44:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:41 UTC