- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:13:31 +0100
- To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On 21/05/2013 15:03, Adrian Roselli wrote: > I like it, but I also think it should suggest against nesting in or > around <strong> and <em>. Sort of heads off the meta discussion, > which I think is a valid one. Hmm, why? I could imagine that within the whole of a deemphasised passage, I could - as an author - still want to stress importance of something...but that it's stressed within the context of the whole deemphasised part (i.e. it's not a "small makes it important-1, but a nested strong makes it "important-1+1" i.e. same importance as regular content kind of hierarchy of importance, more of a "small creates a new importance context"). Urgh, this is sounding like outline algorithm ;) P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:14:04 UTC