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

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

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:33 +0000
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E72B3E5@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:14 AM
> 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 ;)

Yep. That.

Neither <strong>, <em>, nor <small> have grades -- they are all or nothing. Nesting *can* imply more (actually, can it?), but without additional styling doesn't amount to any presentation differences.

Although seeing this (and the ensuing discussion) could be hilarious: <strong grade="+3">ME! <small grade="-1">Not me, <small grade="-2">probably not me</small>, <small grade="-1">and leave me alone</small></small></small></strong>

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:34:05 UTC

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