- From: Wilfred Nas <wilfred@wnas.nl>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:17:08 +0200
- To: Christopher Healey <deezignink@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
hear hear. Cheers, Wilfred Nas @wnas wilfred@wnas.nl wnas.nl +31(0)6 2426 9159 On May 7, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Christopher Healey <deezignink@gmail.com> wrote: > hgroup was perfect for just this circumstance. > > -Christopher > > > On May 7, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes@stommepoes.nl> wrote: > >> 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 >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 14:17:41 UTC