4 ms·

> it's hard to see a point in bothering with all these tags at all What? It's easier than using custom markup that you then need to style appropriately. Why wo

> it's hard to see a point in bothering with all these tags at all What? It's easier than using custom markup that you then need to style appropriately. Why would you not use them? Why would you use instead of ? > the spec[1] says you should mark up a menu with this atrocity... No it doesn't. That's a specific example of indicating keys to press in a menu. Menus generally are marked up as lists inside a nav element.

AlienRobot 3y ago
>Why would you use instead of ? Because I can't be sure I'm using correctly. The spec says "The small element represents side comments such as small print." and then says "Small print typically features disclaimers, caveats, legal restrictions, or copyrights. Small print is also sometimes used for attribution, or for satisfying licensing requirements." You know what this makes me think of? Those captions under images that says the source of the image. Like "photo by John Smith licensed under creative commons." I bet it's the wrong use for this. If it's the right use, then it's worthless either way because there will be a caption for an image in your website that doesn't have this sort of text in it, so you shouldn't use for it, but you'll still want it to look like every other caption in your website, so you'll end up using a class for it anyway. It's ironic people are relying on semantic tags for styling over classes while it's been repeated so often that semantics is not for styling. >That's a specific example of indicating keys to press in a menu Yes, that's what I meant. The fact that the spec implies you're supposed to write code like that God knows whom for doesn't change.
- perilunar 3y ago
 I think you're overthinking this. Use <figcaption> for captions and for the small print: <figure> <img src="johnsmith.jpg" alt="John Smith"> <figcaption> photo by John Smith. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike... </figcaption> </figure>

AlienRobot 3y ago

>Why would you use instead of ? Because I can't be sure I'm using correctly. The spec says "The small element represents side comments such as small print." and then says "Small print typically features disclaimers, caveats, legal restrictions, or copyrights. Small print is also sometimes used for attribution, or for satisfying licensing requirements." You know what this makes me think of? Those captions under images that says the source of the image. Like "photo by John Smith licensed under creative commons." I bet it's the wrong use for this. If it's the right use, then it's worthless either way because there will be a caption for an image in your website that doesn't have this sort of text in it, so you shouldn't use for it, but you'll still want it to look like every other caption in your website, so you'll end up using a class for it anyway. It's ironic people are relying on semantic tags for styling over classes while it's been repeated so often that semantics is not for styling. >That's a specific example of indicating keys to press in a menu Yes, that's what I meant. The fact that the spec implies you're supposed to write code like that God knows whom for doesn't change.

perilunar 3y ago
I think you're overthinking this. Use <figcaption> for captions and for the small print: <figure> <img src="johnsmith.jpg" alt="John Smith"> <figcaption> photo by John Smith. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike... </figcaption> </figure>