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

On 22/05/2013 10:52, Ian Devlin wrote:
> I'd argue that the content within small print is often more important
> than its surrounding content, rather than the opposite.

Ian, yes. However, there's a reason why people make small print...small. 
Be it for reasons of space, or to be mildly deceptive, that's their 
intent. If the authors felt that something is actually more important, 
they'd make it more prominent - they don't. This definition takes into 
account the *author's intent*. This may be opposite to the *reader's 
intent*, but such is the problem with semantics (they represent what the 
author intended, which may be different from the recipient's 
interpretation/needs).

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 Wednesday, 22 May 2013 10:08:39 UTC