Andrew Cunningham wrote:
Jixor - Stephen I wrote:
To me small would imply of less importance, like a side note. if you
just want text to be smaller for design purposes it shouldn't be in a
small
would that imply big is more important?
<big> and <small> are both presentational in the HTML 4.1 spec. For
important stuff, there are the semantic alternatives (<em> and
<strong>), so those should be used. For less important, there currently
isn't an alternative, so <small> (albeit presentational) may be the only
option ... or just going for a <span>, which is semantically just as
meaningless.
HTML5, rather than defining a new semantic equivalent, endows <small>
with semantics post-facto (as they've done with a few other such
instances). Not saying that I agree with that, and not saying that this
should influence the choice to make *today* using HTML 4.1 (or XHTML 1.x).
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
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
