W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0: Suggestion for <addr/> and <blockaddr/> to replace <address/>

From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:29:01 +0100
To: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200312021629.03178.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Am Dienstag, 2. Dezember 2003 14:11 schrieb Lachlan Hunt:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> >On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Christian Wolfgang Hujer wrote:
> >>ince <quote/> and <blockquote/> as well as <code/> and <blockcode/> are
> >>counterpart for quotes or listings, I suggest to replace <address/> with
> >><addr/> and <blockaddr/>.
> >
> >That would be logical in a sense, though one might question the very idea
> >of having inline and block versions of elements. Isn't the distinction
> >basically presentational?
>
>   No, it's not presentational, its the result of not being able to
I agree with Lachlan.
Wether something is allowed as a block of its own or merely as a part of 
another block is not presentational, it's structural.

>   I agree.  I thought the address element was for marking up any
> address, whether it was for the author or not.  I too made that same
> mistake recently when I wanted to write a postal address (not for the
> author) in a document, but discovered that it wasn't meant for that
> general use.  However, I think it, or some new element should be for
> that purpose.  I really don't think it's necessary to have it purely for
> the authors contact details, since meta tags, or RDF could handle that.
> Also, it would be much more useful if it were more general.
I make that "mistake" even intentionally. Though knowing better I currently 
use <address/> for marking up postal addresses or anything that's an address 
and wants to be a block in my documents.

I can't see any reason for calling an element marking up authors <address/> 
instead of <author/>...

> >...However it might be better to define some internal structure for it,
> >instead of mere line structure. Or it might be named just <postal>,
> >for specifying a physical address, whereas various Internet address
> >are, in a natural way, covered by the elements for linking.
>
>   I think that's too specific since it might not be just used for postal
> addresses.  it could be used for email addresses, URIs or any other form
> of address you can think of.  But then, what about phone numbers?
> That's still contact information, yet there is not <phone> element.  How
> about some new <blockcontact>/<contact> elements be introducted.
What are the arguments against my original suggestion <addr/> and 
<blockaddr/>?

>   <contact> is more generic than address so it could hold emails, URIs,
> street addresses, or phone numbers, etc...  If  we continued using
> <address>, then it would conflict with it's current definition as being
> for the author only, whereas <contact> won't.
I agree, <address/> shouldn't be reused with a different meaning, see my 
original post.


Bye
- -- 
ITCQIS GmbH
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/zK++zu6h7O/MKZkRAuI3AJ0eCPHb3CqJQyhTUDbqs9BbA4hG6QCgu31D
eG8ECaTdWRjLPajvIyOuBRk=
=/PFG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:35:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:59 GMT