W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Comments on XHTML 2.0 Working Draft

From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87/O-2K] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:19:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3D4FF70E.BD449C31@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Chris Mannall <chris.mannall@hecubagames.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org



Chris Mannall wrote:
> 
> Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP] wrote:
> 
> [snip]


[snip]

> > I suspect that having two elements, each of which is permitted only in
> > a particular semantic nest, is beneficial, so I don't offer unqualified
> > support for this idea, but I'm willing to be convinced.
> 
> To some degree I almost do agree with you, were it not for the fact that
> the semantic nest these elements are allowed in is the /only difference/
> between the two.
> 
> I just don't see how any value is added to the language when two such
> similar elements are included. Just what is the semantic difference
> between a "division" of text and a "span" of text, anyway? The only
> difference alluded to in the spec is that one is block, one is inline -
> which as I've already stated, is a presentational issue. And it's here
> that your argument about the semantic nests falls flat to me - why
> bother distinguishing between these two elements in the allowable
> document structure when there's no benefit in doing so? In the pre-CSS
> days, when presentation was built in to the document itself, there was a
> benefit/reason for the distinction in that they were displayed
> differently... once this stops being the case, and there's no other
> distinction left, why keep them separate?

I'm not sure; I think I need to think more about this one...

[snip] 

> > Well, allowing <p> to nest within <p> would reduce the implicit
> > error checking which disallowing it permits.
> 
> I'm not sure from your wording whether you intended this as an argument
> for or against... either way, I wasn't actually suggesting that p
> elements could be nested, more pointing out that the definition given
> ("[representing] a sub-paragraph") would seem to be met just as well by
> allowing nesting of p elements. I'd actually oppose such a change
> however - unless someone can prove the existence and usefulness of a
> "sub-paragraph"!

Arguing against allowing <p> to nest within <p>, and ambivalent about
a line element, but thinking along the lines of a <subp> element;
what I would /like/ to argue for is to allow <p level="2"> to nest
inside <p> (\equiv <p level="1">) but I don't think that the syntax
rules would allow nesting to be permitted/disallowed based on the
actual value of a parameter...
[snip]

> Hmm. I can see your point here... I'll have to mull this one over a bit.
>    Your reasoning about not indenting paragraphs after a contained
> element is my reasoning behind saying I was fine with the idea of lists
> inside paragraphs, but I'm still not sure about tables inside
> paragraphs. I suppose it comes down to your established ideas of what
> "paragraphs" can contain - and I would never be happy with the idea of a
> table inside a paragraph.

Surely it all depends how the author writes his/her prose; I believe 
that an author /could/, with some justification, interrupt a sentence
to present a table, and then continue with the sentence once the
table is complete (I can probably find good scientific texts where
this has been done, if you are not convinced by arguments that
whatever is possible should also be permissible...). If the sentence
can be interrupted, then the para. containing that sentence /must/
be interrupted.

** Phil.
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2002 12:22:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT