![]() |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] Re: more xhtml 2.0 comments
From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:28:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3E9C08F0.4060503@escape.com> To: www-html@w3.org Daniel Glazman wrote: > > (a) the l element is purely presentational: it _is_ a line. It's not less > presentational than <br/>. I dispute that. In some contexts, a line is semantic. Not so in prose paragraphs, perhaps, but certainly in poetry. It's important enough that when verse quotations are collapsed into paragraphs, the line break is preserved as a slash. > (b) it is useful only when you have a list of adjacent lines. So it's > basically a list (ul/ol) with list items (li) having no marker and > no wrapping. > (c) using ul/ol/li instead of l makes it MUCH easier to number lines > since you have a known container to reset the numbering. Listing the lines of a sonnet in an OL is IMO ridiculous. It is in no way a list. ~fantasaiReceived on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 09:27:32 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||