Re: l element

Simon Jessey wrote:

>>This element meant to serve as a replacement for <br/>, I still think it
>>will too drastically complexify wysiwyg editors. I still totally
>>disagree with the removal of <br/>.
>>

I also disagree with the total removal of <br/>. Although often misused 
it does have it's place and the way I see it no non-empty element could 
be a replacement for it.

>>    
>>
>
>As far as I am concerned, the only difference between <l>foo</l><l>bar</l>
>and foo<br />bar is that the <l>...</l> container provides an easy
>presentational hook, much like <sentence>...</sentence> or <word>...</word>
>might do.
>
>If I am correct in thinking that the <l>...</l> element has the same
>behavior as <div>...</div>, why not remove BOTH from the specification and
>use <container>...</container> (or some other appropriate word/abbreviation)
>that accomplishes both tasks instead?
>

No I must disagree. I'm not so experienced in these matters, but we must 
keep in mind that the markup is not necessarily going to be parsed by a 
visual browser. <div/> might be able to have the same effect as <l/> 
visually (with a bit of CSS) but might have a totally different effect 
to an aural browser.