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

Re: <hr /> and WD-xhtml2-20021218

From: Wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:37:40 -0600
Message-ID: <3E0C73C4.8040206@winternet.com>
To: www-html@w3.org


On 12/25/2002, Croll wrote...
 > Once again, if the WG is addressing the issue with
 > <hr /> (whether to leave it or not) could you explain
 > the role of this element and other presentational
 > stuff like <sub> and <sup>?

Thank you, Croll.  You have again pointed out how certain specs are 
messing with the CONTENT of BODY and other container/block-class 
elements.  When we start fiddling with the CONTENT of a body element, we 
can go to all sorts of extremes.  One, is changing the order of elements 
IN the BODY element. Isn't ORDER OF ELEMENTS a presentational style? 
Yes.  Should a document author have the right to firmly set the order of 
elements in a BODY no matter what palmtop styler tries to override the 
preferred style?  Yes.  Should an author have the right to put a 
horizontal rule as one of the 'order of elements' (content) in a BODY 
element?  Yes.  Should that be deemed as mixing content and 
presentation?  Yes-No. :)

BODY almost needs a prefs param, or maybe we need a prefs element in the 
HEAD. Keep in mind that we also have VERTICAL rules to deal with too, as 
CONTENT in a web author's preferred order of elements in a BODY element. 
  A PREFS tag might have content that describes the preferred BASIC 
PRESENTATIONAL STYLE of a document.  A PREFS tag would describe... a 
TREE structure in a way.  And therein lies the problem.  XSL'ers have 
dreams of massaging the life force out of dom trees once they're parsed 
into existence from a document.  They think they are going transcluding 
(look it up) and making their own web pages from pieces of others.  And 
this is where the author should have some say as to what another does to 
hack-up the author's preferred document layout and WHOLE content.  Do 
you think the author of Whistler's Mother would want to know, and/or 
have kyboshing rights... if some xsl-crazy transcludian wants to display 
the empty rocking chair instead of the full painting in its proper 
context and order?  YES!

You bet, Croll.  You've got this sitution well-pointed-out, and you're 
only pointing out the tip of the iceberg.

Also... BOX is as presentational or non-presentational as HR... so lets 
include or disclude that too.  What does 'BOX' do?  It 'positions' two 
vertical rules and two horizontal rules in such a way as to RULE-UP some 
content.  One can't use the BOX MODEL stuff in CSS, because that's not 
parallel in a content/presentation-wise thinking... to HR and VR. Likely 
some browser-in-a-coffeemaker will try to style it itself... and mess 
with my BODY element's content.

Hey, I was tickled a bit as I loosely used the word 'position' up there. 
  Is there indeed some very glaring barriers between 'positioning' and 
'styling'?  As hypertext has been divided into content and style, maybe 
so should CSS be divided into 'positioning' (contexting) and 'styling'?

Wingnut
Occassionally spammy lurking topic wanderer.
Received on Friday, 27 December 2002 10:41:18 GMT

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