[whatwg] <BIG> Element

[James Graham]

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?