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

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

From: Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design <nigel@miswebdesign.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:06:26 -0000
To: "Alexander Savenkov" <w3@hotbox.ru>, <www-html@w3.org>, "John Lewis" <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <BFECLKEDIHDIPFDEBCFNMEMJDHAA.nigel@miswebdesign.com>

I'd go for <l> because it's an element that I can see getting a lot of usage
so best to keep it short. <section>, <blockquote> etc. won't get used as
much so keep them long for readability.

I would suggest the principle should be:
Keep high usage elements short and low usage elements long so they are
self-explaining.

(Larry Wall quoted a very similar principle for the design of Perl but I
can't remember where it originated from)

>Today no one marks up "nd" in 2nd to be 'sup'.

I do.

My 2 cents

Nigel

MIS Web Design
http://www.miswebdesign.com/


-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Alexander Savenkov
Sent: 26 December 2002 21:26
To: www-html@w3.org; John Lewis
Subject: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 - <line> or <l>?



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 Monday, 30 December 2002 07:06:38 GMT

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