为什么 <big> 不在 HTML 5 标签列表中而 <small> 是？
声明：本页面是StackOverFlow热门问题的中英对照翻译，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要使用它，必须同样遵循CC BY-SA许可，注明原文地址和作者信息，同时你必须将它归于原作者（不是我）：StackOverFlow
原文地址: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2260024/
Warning: these are provided under cc-by-sa 4.0 license. You are free to use/share it, But you must attribute it to the original authors (not me):
StackOverFlow
Why <big> is not in HTML 5 Tag list while <small> is?
提问by Jitendra Vyas
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>?
不应该都去掉吗？或者这是否意味着我们应该使用<small>？为什么被<big>移除了却<small>没有被移除？<big>不适用的问题是什么<small>？
回答by Chuck
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.
请记住，标签是语义化的，而不是表现性的。英语中有一种叫做“fine print”的东西。这就是小标签所代表的含义。除了标题之外，没有类似的“大字体”概念，标题已经被其他七个标签覆盖。
回答by Nick Craver
<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.
<small>更频繁地使用，用于脚注等...... with <h1>，<h2>而<h3>没有使用 for <big>，因此为什么将其删除。
回答by Lucian Davidescu
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.
适用于小（如“细则”）的相同逻辑也适用于大（如“警告”）。大多数情况下，公开帖子，但也有手册甚至合同，通常会用更大的字体写下内容，表示[所以...语义！] 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"
这与强调不同，强调在上下文中具有含义，而是“无论您在本文中跳过什么，都应该阅读这部分，因为它不是通常的废话，而是具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公司和小公司都应该出去或都进来。
回答by Ryan
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.
一些纯粹的展示标签之前设法溜进了规范，但 2 个标准机构最终达成一致，删除所有纯粹的展示标签，转而使用 CSS。如果某些东西没有语义价值并且纯粹是为了视觉外观——它不属于标记——它属于样式表。
