Some of us (me included) believe <hr /> is structural. Other people
may think it is presentational. I don't really agree it is purely
presentational. I think <hr /> is "as presentational" as <br /> (which,
by the way, is included in the XHTML Basic Recommendation). In other
words, it defines an empty element which has its own meaning and whose
CSS or table alternatives are clearly not as good as it. Would you
remove <br /> in favour of a CSS rule?

However, that is not my main concern:

My original post at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Nov/0000.html  
was also about <fieldset>, <legend>, <sub>, <sup> (which received no 
comments). Thay have valuable semantical meaning, so they should be 
included in XHTML Basic. Somebody asked about where should the distinction
on XHTML Basic and XHTML Strict be. I think both versions should be
restricted to non purely semantical elements and attributes, being XHTML
a smaller subset for all those that should be considered on any device
or user agent. It is fine that XHTML Basic lacks JavaScript or internal
styles, but I don't agree with these 4 tags removal (<fieldset>, <legend>,
<sub>, <sup>).

Comments?

Thanks.

Vicente Luque Centeno
Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc