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 15:13:17 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E72B69F@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> 
> On 5/21/13 10:33 AM, Adrian Roselli wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 1) The recommended UA stylesheet for HTML5 contains:
> 
>    b, strong { font-weight: bolder; }
> 
> Which means that if you have decent fonts in multiple bold weights,
> something like this:
> 
>    <strong>I am <strong>stronger</strong></strong>
> 
> will in fact have the "stronger" as bolder weight than "I am".
> 
> 2) Nested emphasis, while not as well supported in HTML is commonly used
> in print; typically what you will have is something like:
> 
>    Some <em>very <em>emphasized</em> text</em>
> 
> Where the "very" and "text" are italic and the "emphasized" is not.
> 
> 3) The recommended UA stylesheet for HTML5 contains:
> 
>   small { font-size: smaller; }
> 
> so again nested <small> will in fact give you the "this is even smaller"
> styling, up to a point.


Those are all about styling, which is (to me) strictly presentation. Does the nesting do anything for AT or for anything related to the document structure or semantics?

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:13:47 UTC

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