On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
It's clear that, despite the spec would currently encourage this
example's markup, it is not a good choice. IMHO, either of
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Markus Ernst wrote:
Ian Hickson schrieb:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote:
Encouraging use of small print for legalese also encourages this:
h1
a href=continue.html
Welcome to the BigCo web site. Click to continue.
/a
/h1
smallBy clicking
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
It's clear that, despite the spec would currently encourage this
example's markup, it is not a good choice. IMHO, either of these should
be used instead:
pYour 100%
Ian Hickson schrieb:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote:
Encouraging use of small print for legalese also encourages this:
h1
a href=continue.html
Welcome to the BigCo web site. Click to continue.
/a
/h1
smallBy clicking above, you agree that BigCo can charge your
credit card $10 per
The text from the current spec is, Small print is typically
legalese describing disclaimers, caveats, legal
restrictions, or copyrights. Small print is also sometimes
used for attribution.
By suggesting it is typical, that implicitly encourages people
to use small print for legal text.
One of
I have addressed all Andrew's points previously. Please forgive my posting
an outline of the arguments here.
1. The specification does not encourage using the SMALL element for legal
notices. It merely allows the SMALL element to contain legal notices.
2. Legal texts are unreadable on their
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote:
I have a copy of the Constitution of the United States on my web site.
That is a legal text. It also qualifies as legalese, a derogatory
term. If I were to change it to HTML 5, the current spec encourages me
to place the entire Constitution in
2009/6/5 Jeff Walden jwalden+wha...@mit.edu:
Do you seriously believe any client in an industry where he has to step
carefully enough to worry about typographical formatting of legal notices is
fool enough to follow a not-even-recommendation in the HTML5 specification
over what his lawyer
On 6/4/2009 5:10 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
Do you seriously believe any client in an industry where he has to
step carefully enough to worry about typographical formatting of legal
notices is fool enough to follow a not-even-recommendation in the
HTML5 specification over what his lawyer tells him
Responding to Kristof Zelechovski.
I have a copy of the Constitution of the United States on my web site.
That is a legal text. It also qualifies as legalese, a derogatory term.
If I were to change it to HTML 5, the current spec encourages
me to place the entire Constitution in small elements.
While I actually defended the recommendation to use the SMALL element for
legal text, and I am still ready to do it, it is worth noting that the text
of section 4.6.6. does not contain such a recommendation. It merely states
that out of possible uses of the SMALL element, the legal use is the
Do you seriously believe any client in an industry where he has to step
carefully enough to worry about typographical formatting of legal notices is
fool enough to follow a not-even-recommendation in the HTML5 specification over
what his lawyer tells him is the correct thing to do?
Jeff
12 matches
Mail list logo
