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

Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 - <line> or <l>?

From: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:25:58 +0300
Message-ID: <171123551.20021227002558@hotbox.ru>
To: www-html@w3.org, John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>

Hello John, everyone,

> Today we'd need to use br; l is a huge improvement because it's more
> precise (the element contains a line of text, instead of being an
> empty element that "forces a line break," or whatever it is the br
> element is). The l element is also easily styled *because* of the
> meaning it imparts that the br element does not. Is it
> "presentational"? I don't know, I'd need to think about it more. But
> it doesn't matter; either way, it belongs in XHTML. Sub and sup are
> entirely presentational and yet still useful (and definitely not
> meaningless). If we toss the l, sub, and sup elements, we'd need to
> use span elements and classes instead--which do you think is worse?
As for me, I guess <sub> and <sup> are worse. Today no one marks up
"nd" in 2nd to be 'sup'. I guess French users (or whomever employs
<sup>s) do the same. Once you need high quality typography please
welcome stylesheet languages.

> PS: I am completely behind the l element keeping its short name. So
> long as the spec is clear, and it is, there should be no confusion.
> Further, there are speed advantages for hand authors and size
> advantages, which are especially remarkable with heavy l/line element
> usage.
Let's be logical. Speed advantages for hand authors make no sense
since there are editors that complete your elements after you typed a
few (or one) first letters. If you see this as an advantage why aren't
you advocating <sec> instead <section> or <bq> instead <blockquote>?

Best regards,
---
  Alexander "Croll" Savenkov                  http://www.thecroll.com/
  w3@hotbox.ru                                     http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Thursday, 26 December 2002 16:38:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT