- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:41:20 -0500
Le 2007-02-09 ? 16:36, Lachlan Hunt a ?crit : > No, the use cases for <m> are clear, and it is different from both > <em> and <strong>. I think it should be kept as-is, though its > definition in the spec clearly needs to be improved. Suggestion of an improvement to the spec: "The m element represents a run of text marked or highlighted for reference purposes." I think adding "for reference purposes" to the current definition helps distinguish it from importance (given by <strong>) or stress emphasis (given by <em>). <em> : stress emphasis (changes the meaning) <strong> : importance (no change in meaning) <m> : reference marker (no change in meaning or importance) Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 18:41:20 UTC