[whatwg] <BIG> Element
Anne van Kesteren
fora at annevankesteren.nl
Sun Jan 15 06:14:20 PST 2006
Quoting "Eugene T.S. Wong" <lists.eugenetswong at gmail.com>:
>> 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/>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list