- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 21:43:06 -0700
- To: <www-html@w3.org>, "Liam Quinn" <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Liam Quinn wrote: > Not really, except perhaps that multiple spaces (non-breaking or > otherwise) are not structural elements and thus should be ignored. HTML > 4.0 defines the entity as a method for prohibiting a line break. > If we accept as a non-collapsing, non-breaking space, HTML 4.0's > definition would have to be augmented to also define as a method > for forcing a space. But the fact that multiple spaces have nothing to do > with structure and everything to do with presentation suggests that non- > collapsible spaces have no place in HTML. > > While we're on this topic... What about multiple BR elements? Should > these be collapsed? No, for the same reason as . HTML should not be an exercise in pedantry. Choose the interpretation that provides the most power of expression. Do not actively limit presentational possibilities for the sake of structural Puritanism. What's wrong with simply considering as an imaginary character without a glyph? Of course that does require a few caveats. For example, is it a vowel or a consonant? But given the Unicode Consortium's interpretation of ­, this shouldn't be a problem. David Perrell
Received on Sunday, 13 July 1997 00:43:21 UTC