Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[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.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 09:27:32 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.