[whatwg] <BIG> Element
jg307 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Jan 13 16:25:23 PST 2006
Eugene T.S. Wong wrote:
> Lachlan, I'd appreciate it if we could work together on this.
> As I've already said, <STRONG> doesn't convey shouting. How much less
> would <EM> convey shouting? The answer is "much less"!
I disagree. <strong> conveys strong emphasis, something that is often
achieved in speech through shouting. Therefore it is totally appropriate
to use <strong> to markup this case.
Although the HTML5 spec does admit a small number of elements of
questionable semantics (at least historically - they have mostly been
redefined to have non-presentational meanings) it is only the elements
that are in wide use and address a use-case that is not already covered
by another element that have received this special treatment. <small>
was eligible because it is very commonly used for a single purpose and
the definition of small as "(legal) small print" basically makes sense.
<big> does not get the special treatment because there is no use case
that isn't covered by CSS, <em> and <strong>.
> I don't want to get worked up into a debate, though.
The point of the list is to discuss ideas.
> I'd much rather
> make my own HTML standard.
How can you have your own standard?
More information about the whatwg