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

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.