W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2010

RE: Request to Revert revision 1.4525

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Maciej,
> >
> > I think that warning is fine, except that it is visually emphasised,
> but not
> > in the mark-up. suggest the most robust way to empahsise
> this information is
> > to provide a heading for it.
> Isn't it more semantically correct to use the <em> element? If not, is
> the <em> element failing to fulfill its intended purpose and should be
> removed?

<em>, as an inline element serves its purpose well, but as the current
spec states, "The em element also isn't intended to convey importance".
Given that this text *is* important, <em> is not the right choice.

The "most robust" way is to make this warning its own block level content;
marked as a heading it's higher up in the hierarchal tree, reflecting its
importance to the overall document. Studies show that non-visual users
generally navigate an html document using headings first, thus further
solidifying this reasoning.

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 08:33:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC