W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2009

[whatwg] Using <em> for Meta-Content

From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:28:20 +0200
Message-ID: <1245367700.4890.315.camel@desudesudesu>
Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 12:52 +0100 schrieb Smylers:
> The italics there don't seem to be indicating stress (and the sentence
> doesn't warrant an exclamation mark at the end), more that it's
> meta-content -- information about the section.

I currently use <small> for that in my blog posts.

> I suggest that either the definition of <em> is broadened to include
> this sense, or these normativity designators are instead marked up with
> something like <i class=normativity> or <i class=other>.

I suggest broadening the <small> element, mainly because it is already
spec'd to contain some kind of meta-information (legal text).

> This meta-content use seems similar to an article by a guest author
> being prefaced by an italicized paragraph from a regular author
> introducing the guest.  Or editoral comments inserted into somebody
> else's work, which are often in square brackets and italics as well as
> having "- Ed" at the end.  Mainly it's just indicating some kind of
> separation from the main text.

Editorial comments can be marked up using the <ins> element, as I
understand it. Also, in your example, you could separate content through
having an actual <article> element being preceded by some other block
element.

> [?] That suggests the <small> element, but that isn't quite right
> either: whether a section is normative is materially relevant to the
> content, not just a legal technicality.)

As I said, <small> appears to have the most appeal to me.


Cheers
-- 
Nils Dagsson Moskopp
<http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 16:28:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:13 UTC