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

RE: In support of the "line space" (nee <hr>)

From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:49:49 -0700
Message-ID: <E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB28C6D2@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: "'Alexander Savenkov'" <w3@hotbox.ru>, www-html@w3.org

For <hr>, I propose the following decision tree:

1. Does <hr> have any legitimate non-presentational uses?
   If no, get rid of it entirely.
   If yes, rename it and preserve the correct aspects of it.

Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. :-)

Alexander raises a few good points.

1. English-language-specifics

Is the "line space" technique specific to English-language texts? Can anyone
provide examples for/against?

2. Unnamed <section>s

Does an unnamed <section> capture the same meaning?

There will always be many answers to the question of how to map
chapters/verses, etc. to <section>s.

>I. e. the author considered the second subsection too small
>to give it a heading.

The part I quoted was just the very end of one block of text and the very
beginning of the next. And this particular story doesn't have any named
sections at all (besides chapters), which is pretty common (at least in my
library). So it wasn't that the author thought the subsection was "too
small", but rather that a 'pause' was necessary before continuing. An
unnamed <section> doesn't indicate any kind of a pause.

>The example [of 3 asterisks] you give dates from the old days.

Well, 1999 in any case. :-) It's written from the viewpoint of a writer,
where there is still a strong expectation to deliver dead-tree manuscripts.
I wanted to show one possible presentation of this element.

>Adding a new empty element with no information inside is
>not a good thing for the future Web

Just curious, why do you say this? Sometimes the lack of information carries
meaning. What I really don't want to see is:

<p class="center">*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*</p>

3. Don't add presentational attributes in any case

Violently agree. :-)


Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 19:50:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC