W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2013

Re: [RESEND] suggestion: modify <small> definition

From: Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:54:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJFUXE80tN6sRpfvB5BCrvp5WPSD7zpNbuwRK=oo0ZN2Q1j43A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
I'm happy with the definition of <small> except for one point:

The example about "de-emphasising" <em> and <strong> is edge case and
confuses the definition. Who would write "<small><em>I love
you</em></small>"? You either feel strongly about it or you don't. In
almost all sensible cases, smalls, ems and strongs would not be nested but
equivalent.

I think it would be fair to say that <small> "de-emphasises certain phrases
and clauses within flow content". It stands to reason that, if this was not
your intention and neither was "emphasizing" text (ie. via <em>), that one
would simply not include one of these inline elements. I don't think this
needs to be explained.

Oh, one more thing: I think <small> not being block level is indication
enough that it is not suitable as a subheading.

Cheers - Heydon.
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:55:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:02 UTC