- From: Åke Järvklo <ake@jarvklo.se>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:30:11 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com
- Message-ID: <CAD5mPodrixJZgwFik8yhvLfUV3ET6Y8eMoQDvWpGD7Kh=V=7tw@mail.gmail.com>
There be dragons here - obviously. And with hgroup still around this might IMHO probably have been a non-issue (at least for a grass-root like myself) since then we would have had *that* alternative to use. But hgroup is gone now, and the need to group/split/handle "grouped headings" obviously persists. so here we are (and here's my two cents on the matter (thanks Steve Faulkner for asking! ) ) My thoughts goes something like this: TL;DR: Small elements inside headings seems fine to me. I never considered this a problem until the events leading up to tweets about boycotting Bootstrap over this issue started the other day. * b, i, small and big were all presentational (and very similar to each other in their inline definitions and common "presentational only" semantics) in HTML4 - and they were all altered during the work that led us up to HTML5. * The implementation of these elements in HTML5 seems (by empirical testing at least) to remain exactly the same as in HTML4 - so technically they have not changed in how they are handled by browsers. * The semantics of b and i has changed, but that was made in a way that enabled those elements to more or less be used as before and still fulfill the new semantic rules. * big were made entirely obsolete, and must no longer not be used by authors. * small (the presentational "counterpart" to big) was not dropped, but instead given a set of new semantics that (still) don't affect how the element is implemented in browsers That said - b and i are IMHO excellent examples on how the semantic changes for HTML5 were handled in the best of ways. If someone occasionally treads an an old cow-path (for *whatever reason* - milage varies), this most likely will fulfill the new semantics for those elements and this will most likely not present a problem to anyone... IMHO it is important to remember this historical aspect when judging on "small as a possible vehicle for subtitles" - again - it is a *very* humble opinion. So - Fast forward to present time and this discussion. To me - since the use of the use of small element inside a header element won't break anything on the page (or - as has been indicated in this thread does most likely not pose a problem for eg. AT enhanced browsers or search engines) - this is an opportunity to extend the semantics of the small element ever so little and thereby make it more "seamlessly integrated" between HTML4 and HTML5 - and thereby easier to understand for a larger audience of developers out there. Perhaps a new name for the "small print" semantic needs - together with dropping small (like big was dropped) - would be better, but I recall that *that* discussion has already occured (and that it - for an outsider - seemed very painful) - so... Summary: IMHO - Since the Bootstrap editors are already interpreting the current wording as "small is OK there" (and it blew right past me as well although I try to pay close attention "from the rafters" to where HTML5 is going and advocate "respecting the spec" from my position whenever I can) - the change should probably need to be minimal change in wording to more or less automatically invite the users of Botstrap into the world of standards compliance (at least for this detalil ;) ), and that - IMHO - would be a win. FWIW /Jarvklo
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 21:30:42 UTC