W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2005

[whatwg] <p> elements containing other block-level elements

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:34:08 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504120932130.20461@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > You missed <p><blockquote/></p>.
> > 
> > Oops, yep. Added.
> 
> I could see the point with CODE versus PRE versus CODE as only child of
> PRE as they have different kind of semantics.
> 
> But what is the reason for BLOCKQUOTE? Clearly, Q is for inline and you
> don't really need BLOCKQUOTE for that. (If you want to quote a table
> from some other source, perhaps, but then again, you could just alter
> the Q element its content model.)

Q is for quoting something that is part of a paragraph. BLOCKQUOTE is for 
quoting something that contains paragraphs.


> > > The problem is that you mix inline with block-level. Unless UL is 
> > > redefined to be inline level within P I don't think this is a good 
> > > idea. I like the idea of having either inline or block-level 
> > > content.
> > 
> > The spec now has block-level, structured inline-level, and strictly 
> > inline-level concepts. I'm not overly fond of the names (better 
> > suggestions welcome), but I hope it addresses your concerns.
> 
> Mostly, except that they are underdefined at the moment. I assume that 
> section is still being worked on?

The whole spec is being worked on. :-) However, I don't really see 
anything underdefined about the block-level, structured inline-level, and 
strictly inline-level concepts. What conformance criteria are we missing?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 02:34:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:22 UTC