RE: using strong to indicate a title?

Hi guys,

This new idea is awesome, so much that I wanted to jump in as well.
I do agree that <strong> should be considered to indicate a title and I do agree with Denis, <small> shouldn't be left a side.

But I don't think <small> by itself belongs inside a heading tag, it just goes against its purpose, I would suggest something slightly different, if <strong> is a title, then <small> is a subtitle.

<h1>
<strong>THIS MAIN TITLE IS COOL</strong>
<small>But this subtitle makes it awesome</small>
</h1>

Just a humble suggestion,

Guillermo.

> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:58:27 +0200
> From: stommepoes@stommepoes.nl
> To: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: using strong to indicate a title?
> 
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:52:09AM -0400, Denis Boudreau wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I do like Steve's proposal using an existing element in h1 to create some sort of a hierarchy. But I must admit that the first thing that came to mind when reading Steve's proposal for <strong>, I wondered why the proposal wasn't for <small>. So depending on whether you want the smaller heading above or below the larger one, we could do either of the following: 
> > 
> > <h1>
> > <small>Breaking News</small>
> > Steve Faulkner had this crazy idea!
> > </h1>
> > 
> > <h1>
> > Breaking News
> > <small>Steve Faulkner had this crazy idea!</small>
> > </h1>
> > 
> > /Denis
> > 
> 
> Of the two, I like the second one better. Small has always meant
> "sub" in my mind, read out loud differently like legal text and
> under-the-breath mutters. First example makes much less sense, since
> if you just want a styling sandbag, span makes more sense.
> 
> -Mallory
>