[whatwg] small element should allow nested elements
remy at leftlogic.com
Fri Aug 7 08:24:53 PDT 2009
I should add, another argument for using small to wrap, is that
without it, on a list element, the numerals in the list are larger
than the the small print text - because the small element is on the
inner HTML rather than the entire element (which does effect the
numeric bullets too).
On 7 Aug 2009, at 14:19, Remy Sharp wrote:
> I know Bruce Lawson has mentioned that this has been brought up
> before, but I couldn't find it in the archives (searching "small"),
> so I'd like to bring it up again.
> The HTML 5 spec says:
> "Small print typically features disclaimers, caveats, legal
> restrictions, or copyrights. Small print is also sometimes used for
> attribution, or for satisfying licensing requirements."
> So I'm making a list of disclaimers for my site:
> <li>You must agree to this term</li>
> <li>And this term too</li>
> <li>And don't break this term</li>
> <li>And don't forget the milk</li>
> <p>By reading this, you're agreeing to xyz</p>
> To make this valid, and small print text, I need to individually
> wrap the inner HTML of each inline element (li and p elements).
> This is wasteful and very much like the situation that we had with
> the a element when we wanted the whole block to be clickable.
> When I wrap *everything* in the small element (as seen here: http://jsbin.com/okevo
> ) all the browsers I've tested it in renders the text as I would
> expect, but it doesn't validate against the HTML 5 parsing rules (as
> you'd expect).
> If this element is truly for disclaimers, caveats and restrictions,
> and not stylistically making something small, then it will be
> typically used on blocks of content, be it a single line or multiple
> paragraphs. As such, it seems sensible to say that the small
> element can have nested block elements within it.
> Here's the list of the compatible browsers (I could have done more
> browsers, but I think this test with 10 proves the support is solid):
> <small>At time of writing, the last test is still being generated,
> but I've tested Firefox 3.5 manually and it passes</small> ;-)
> Remy Sharp
> Left Logic
> I'm running a conference in Brighton on 20-Nov called:
More information about the whatwg