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

WD-xhtml2-20021211 comments

From: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:19:40 -0600
Message-ID: <1827683947.20021212201940@cda.mrs.umn.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org

Following are comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD of 11 December 2002

I can't find the line (or l) element's section. There's some mention
of it in section "8. XHTML Text Module", but there is no section for
it between "8.9. The kbd element" and "8.10. The p element" (where it
was last time).

I can't find any mention of the cite element. Has it been removed (and
if so, why)? Is there, or will there be, a replacement?

I favor the removal of strong, the numbered headings (h1-h6), and hr.

Why get rid of strong:
1. The meaning of strong is sufficiently equal to one em element
   inside another.
2. Equally, the meaning of strong inside strong or strong inside em or
   em inside strong can be sufficiently expressed with multiple em
   elements--*very little*, if any, information is lost. For example,
   take this:
     <em>emphasised <strong>strongly emphasised inside
   and this:
     <strong>strongly emphasised <em>emphasised within strongly
   You don't lose anything with this:
     <em>emphasised <em><em>strongly emphasised inside
   and the same with this, in the second example:
     <em><em>strongly emphasised <em>emphasised within strongly
   Getting rid of strong doesn't reduce the ability to style text. It
   makes everything simpler, if not as intuitive--though XHTML 2.0
   isn't very intuitive either. (If strong is removed, it would
   probably be helpful to say that two em elements are recommended in
   place of one strong element--ditto if it's deprecated.)

Why get rid of the numbered headings:
1. h1-h6 are superseded by h elements in section elements. Not only
   can there be any number of levels of headings with h elements, but
   this is accomplished with only two elements (instead of six
   elements for six levels, you have two elements for any number of
   levels--on the other hand it is more "work," but I think the end
   result justifies the trouble).
2. h elements encourage (well, almost require) that authors use
   section elements appropriately.

Why get rid of hr:
1. Its need is dubious considering the new section element (in
   conjunction with borders). I admit there are situations where it
   could possibly be useful, but I don't think such situations
   constitute a *need* for hr. I may be wrong.
2. If it is kept, renaming it to separator (or the like) is a very
   good idea.

Why not deprecate those elements instead? Because XHTML 2.0 makes no
effort to be backwards compatible; essentially, because there's no
convincing reason to *not* remove them. (Except perhaps for a
separator element--I'm not entirely convinced it should be removed,

In (for example) "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," Lewis Carroll has
what looks to me like inline quotations (dialogue) that enclose block
content. In XHTML 2.0, the inline quotation would need to be a
blockquote instead of a quote--but that doesn't seem to be what's
written--or maybe it's just how it looks. Here's an example:

> The Hatter shook his head mournfully. 'Not I!' he replied. 'We
> quarrelled last March--just before /he/ went mad, you know--'
> (pointing with his tea spoon at the March Hare,) '--it was at the
> great concert given by the Queen of Hearts, and I had to sing
>    "Twinkle, twinkle, little bat!
>     How I wonder what you're at!"
> You know the song, perhaps?'

My question is, is the supposed inline quote (starting with "--it was"
and ending with "perhaps?") a blockquote, a grammatical error (keeping
in mind it was written in the 1800s), or something else (like an issue
of style and not content)? Is it possible to mark up something like
this correctly in XHTML 2.0 (as it is currently written)?

I somehow was under the impression that the address element could be
used, for example, to mark up the author of the current document
without including any sort of contact information. Is that misuse of

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 21:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:01 UTC