RE: proposal to explicitly forbid <small> use as subheadings

Adrian Roselli, Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:36:36 +0000:
Leif Halvard Silli Friday, June 07, 2013 10:59 AM
>> Adrian Roselli, Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:19:43 +0000:
>>> If a sub-heading element is created, then this language should change
>>> to reflect that.
>> 
>> Thus, it seems we just complicate the issue if we try to say anything about
>> <small> vs sub-headings, before we have come to a conclusion regarding a
>> sub-heading element solution.
> 
> In my opinion, not at all.
>
> Explicitly forbidding <small> seems unnecessary to me. Just strike 
> that prohibition and move on.

First you say that whether to explicitly forbidding <small>, is not 
affected by the addition  - or not - by <subline>:

> That has no bearing on whether or not a 
> <subline>-like element comes in the future.

Then you say that *if* we add <subline>, *then*, we can discuss 
amending the language:

> If a <subline>-like element does come in the future, then the 
> language can be amended.

The only difference I can see between your position and mine, is that 
you want to decide now, to not add the prohibition (which requires no 
change to the spec), and to eventually take up the issue once again if 
<subline> is added. Whereas I want to postpone the discussing of the 
issue until we have decided about <subline> - whether or not we add 
<subline>. I think the debate just becomes messy if we discuss <small> 
anything more now - I think we see that already, due to to the links 
(in our heads and in the debate) between <small> and sub-heading. I 
also count into this that Steve has aired very many solutions to the 
sub-heading problem.

However, I am forced to have any opinion here and now, then I am one 
your side (since it practically speaking the same as I say).
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 17:02:30 UTC