Aw: Re: HTML entities
Martin J. Dürst
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Mar 22 20:18:54 CDT 2021
Hello Asmus, others,
On 2021/03/23 09:29, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote:
> On 3/22/2021 4:23 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> I agree that this text from MDN is not very good. I think that what it
>> meant is something like "don't use <sup> if you want smaller, raised
>> letters just for a change or just for fun". Also, of course, MDN is
>> not a specification.
> Right, we get that.
> In the unusual circumstance that I might want smaller, raised letters
> "just for fun", I may not care about a precise appearance, so I wouldn't
> pay attention to "rules" anyway.
> The real issue with <sup> compared to <strong> is that language like
> that makes it masquerade as "semantic", when it isn't.
In my opinion, in these contexts, 'semantic' has to be seen as something
with a degree. <strong> may have a higher degree of semantics that
<sup>. For <sup>, it's essentially any kind of semantics that is usually
displayed as a superscript, which could be e.g. an exponent, a
superscript index in some mathematical of physical,... notation, a
superscript in some phonetic notation, and so on. For <strong>, at least
if we follow the meaning of the word 'strong' itself, it's any kind of
semantics that implies some kind of strengthening, which still could be
a rather wide range. In both cases, for finer semantics, an HTML class
attribute might be used.
More information about the Unicode