This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
David A. Wheeler scripsit: > Unfortunately, <small> in HTML just makes the font smaller; it's by no > means guaranteed that it's the right size for small capital letters. > I worry that using <small> will make these REALLY important words hard > to see, which is clearly not desired. We *could* achieve that affect > in CSS, but we're supposed to stick with HTML 3.2. So I don't think > <small> is a good idea here; we just don't have that fine a control > over the typography. While your concern is well-founded in theory, I don't think it's a big problem in practice. <small> may be a little too large, but the CSS version is actually a little too small, at least on Chrome, Firefox, and IE7. Check out <http://ccil.org/~cowan/MicroXML-old.html> for an example of the use of <small> in this context, and <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml> for an example of the use of CSS. It's possible that on *some* browsers <small> will look funny, but I don't think it will be grossly too prominent or too vanishing. > I think we'd be better off just making them bold, using <b>...</b>, > and capitalizing them too. Then it'd be rather hard to miss these > key words. Studies show that people's eyes jump immediately to bold text when first looking at a page, so it makes sense to use it for headings, but almost never is it useful at the level of a single word. Unless you want the text to be seen like this: "... MUST ... MUST NOT ... SHOULD ... MAY ..." Take a look at <http://www.atmark-techno.com/~yashi/libffi.html>, where the return types of the functions being defined are in bold and the function name and parameters are in italics. At the beginning of section 2.1, the definition of ffi_prep_cif looks at first glance like a definition of ffi_status, but it's not. -- John Cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx http://ccil.org/~cowan And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population. For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express dissatisfaction with the regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so dishonorable, such putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee