On 20 Sep 2006, at 02:23, Chris Messina wrote:
I think what you need to define are ways to express relativety -- and that <strong>, <em>, <big> and <small> can help in indicating those relationships with styles turned off. So for example, the very smallest size might always have <em> surrounding the <small> tags... so that there's a lower limit. You could use <em> or <strong> around the <big> tags to express the upper limit.
I'm not sure about using BIG and SMALL. We start getting into the territory of redefining elements (adding semantic values to those presentational elements[1]) which is something the WHATWG are already doing with HTML5. Mainly, they're redefining SMALL for ‘small print’ in documents [2], which conflicts directly with using SMALL in tag clouds.
Personally I quite like the nested behaviour. I accept that is also unspecified implied semantics, but it doesn't seem unreasonable… that said, you can get four levels of tag cloud without nesting of the same element (by using STRONG as well), e.g:
<ol class="hTagcloud"> <li>A Level One</li> <li>B Level One</li> <li><em>C Level Two</em></li> <li><strong>D Level Three</strong></li> <li><strong><em>E Level Four</em></strong></li> <li><strong>F Level Three</strong></li> <li>Level One</li> </ol> Would four levels be enough? Ben [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.1 [2] http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-small_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
