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

RE: XHTML 2.0 - <line> or <l>?

From: Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design <nigel@miswebdesign.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:44:00 -0000
To: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mira@cc.jyu.fi>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFECLKEDIHDIPFDEBCFNKEPLDHAA.nigel@miswebdesign.com>

Mikko wrote:
> As you mentioned Perl, it came to my mind that Perl has aliases for the
> short forms. How about recommending the use of "l" element, but it would
> be equivalent with "line" element? Possible problems with this method
> are that (a) user agent and user default style sheets would need to
> specify same rendering for both element names (this one isn't a big
> problem really) and (b) structurally equivalent documents could look
> different with the same CSS applied if part of the CSS only had rules
> for "l" but no rules for "line" or the other way around.

Sounds like a good idea to me, only thought is that it might open the door
for suggestions of "let's have a <paragraph> and a <p>", "let's have a
<strong> and an <s>" etc. etc. which would compound both of the problems you
highlighted. For this reason I would suggest probably best choosing one or
the other, to keep it simple.

Nigel

MIS Web Design
http://www.miswebdesign.com/
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 08:43:24 GMT

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