Ok... fine... we'll just do:

<transition>~~~</transition>

and now it's structural. However it doesn't change the fact that
<object> is content seeing as how it doesn't markup content but rather
is content. Unless you think the fallback content is the content
represented by the object element.

Orion Adrian

On 6/9/05, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> Orion Adrian:
> > On 6/7/05, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> >> I was thinking about an audio book, which (sometimes) do have
> >> background/ambient sounds.
> >
> > There are other organization methods that will be used and can be used.
> 
> Different solutions for the same problem, dpending on media? I don't
> think so.
> 
> > There are quite a few things that don't follow standard technical
> > writing organization. Authors often feel that they have the right to
> > use structure as art.
> 
> Something you don't have to encourage (or even take into account) in the
> design of a general purpose mark-up language.
> 
> > I'd rather not have to specify all my separators as
> > <span class="separator">&separator;</span>
> > just because you don't like empty elements.
> 
> I'm for enclosing the blocks that are to be separated, not for any
> simulation of 'hr' at all, but if /you/ wanted to make one, you
> certainly shouldn't be using 'span'.
> 
> > I do not agree with the assesment that separator is structural.
> 
> Okay, then it doesn't need to be included into a structural mark-up
> language.
> 
>         Christoph Päper
>