Shouldn't both be removed? Or does it mean we should use <small>? Why is <big> removed but <small> is not? What is the problem with <big> which does not apply to <small>?
不应该被删除?或者是否意味着我们应该使用?为什么被移除而没有被移除?不适用于小>的问题是什么?
http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
4 个解决方案
#1
171
Remember, the tags are meant to be semantic, not presentational. There is such a thing in English as "fine print". This is what the small tag represents. There is no analogous concept of "big print" except for a header, which is already covered by seven other tags.
记住，标签是语义的，而不是表示的。英语中有一种东西叫做“小字”。这就是小标签所代表的。除了标题之外，没有类似的“大打印”概念，标题已经被其他7个标签所覆盖。
#2
9
<small> is used more frequently, for footnotes and such...with <h1>, <h2> and <h3> there just wasn't a use for <big>, hence why it's removed.
小>更常用，用于脚注等。有
，
和
，没有使用，因此它被删除了。
#3
4
The same logic that applies to small (as "fine print") is also just as true for big (as "warning"). Public postings, mostly, but also manuals or even contracts often have things written in bigger fonts that signify [so... semantics!] a warning.
同样适用于小(如“小字”)的逻辑同样适用于大(如“警告”)。大多数情况下，公开发布的信息，也包括手册，甚至合同，通常都是用更大的字体写的，这意味着……语义!一个警告。
It's not the same as emphasis, which has a meaning in context, but rather "whatever you skip in this text, this part you should read because it's not the usual blah blah but something with immediate and important consequences"
这和强调不一样，强调在语境中有意义，而是"无论你在这篇课文中跳过什么，这部分你都应该读因为这不是一般的废话而是有直接和重要后果的东西"
That's why I think big and small should both be out or both in.
这就是为什么我认为大的和小的都应该在外面或者都在里面。
#4
3
Some purely presentational tags managed to slip through into the spec before but the 2 standards bodies have finally reached a concesus to remove all purely presentational tags in favour of using CSS. If something has no semantic value and is purely for visual apearance - it does NOT belong in the markup - it belongs in a stylesheet.
一些纯粹的表示性标记之前就已经进入了规范，但这两个标准团体最终达成了一个协议，删除所有纯表示性标记，以支持使用CSS。如果一个东西没有语义价值，而且纯粹是为了视觉感知——它不属于标记——那么它属于样式表。
#1
171
Remember, the tags are meant to be semantic, not presentational. There is such a thing in English as "fine print". This is what the small tag represents. There is no analogous concept of "big print" except for a header, which is already covered by seven other tags.
记住，标签是语义的，而不是表示的。英语中有一种东西叫做“小字”。这就是小标签所代表的。除了标题之外，没有类似的“大打印”概念，标题已经被其他7个标签所覆盖。
#2
9
<small> is used more frequently, for footnotes and such...with <h1>, <h2> and <h3> there just wasn't a use for <big>, hence why it's removed.
小>更常用，用于脚注等。有
，
和
，没有使用，因此它被删除了。
#3
4
The same logic that applies to small (as "fine print") is also just as true for big (as "warning"). Public postings, mostly, but also manuals or even contracts often have things written in bigger fonts that signify [so... semantics!] a warning.
同样适用于小(如“小字”)的逻辑同样适用于大(如“警告”)。大多数情况下，公开发布的信息，也包括手册，甚至合同，通常都是用更大的字体写的，这意味着……语义!一个警告。
It's not the same as emphasis, which has a meaning in context, but rather "whatever you skip in this text, this part you should read because it's not the usual blah blah but something with immediate and important consequences"
这和强调不一样，强调在语境中有意义，而是"无论你在这篇课文中跳过什么，这部分你都应该读因为这不是一般的废话而是有直接和重要后果的东西"
That's why I think big and small should both be out or both in.
这就是为什么我认为大的和小的都应该在外面或者都在里面。
#4
3
Some purely presentational tags managed to slip through into the spec before but the 2 standards bodies have finally reached a concesus to remove all purely presentational tags in favour of using CSS. If something has no semantic value and is purely for visual apearance - it does NOT belong in the markup - it belongs in a stylesheet.
一些纯粹的表示性标记之前就已经进入了规范，但这两个标准团体最终达成了一个协议，删除所有纯表示性标记，以支持使用CSS。如果一个东西没有语义价值，而且纯粹是为了视觉感知——它不属于标记——那么它属于样式表。