- From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:28:20 +0200
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