Quoting "Eugene T.S. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
but there is an attempt to redefine the small element with some
semantic meaning.
If that is true, then I encourage the WHATWG to use another name,
such as <FINEPRINT>ASDF</FINEPRINT>. It is a lot longer, but it does
convey more semantics.
It does not. The "semantics" of an element are bound to the definition of it,
not to the name.
In the above scenario, there are semantics, but there are no semantic
elements to convey shouting. The elements are modifiable by CSS. I
suppose that we could nest <STRONG> a few times, but I don't
recognize strong emphasis as the same thing as shouting.
I think nested <em> elements are in order here. You don't really need
<big> for
that. <big> does not represent "shouting" in any definition I've seen so far
and <em> comes pretty close as generic element.
Also, it might be helpful to use <BIG> for math problems, without
having to resort to MathML.
<big> can't possibly be defined to mean two different things while staying in
the same namespace. Well, I suppose it could be based on the context it is
placed in, but I think that would get confusing. Also, there is MathML.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
