W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2004

Re: <NOBR> - Returning to the question....

From: Orion Adrian <oadrian@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:25:34 -0400
To: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY1-F116yZCRTkLKtp00007d58@hotmail.com>

> > I've noticed that in all of the examples you have put forth, Jukka,
> > have the following thing in common, they contain content you want
> > to indicate as being a single syntactic unit.
>
>That's a general property of logical text-level markup, is it not?
>In this case, it's a matter of a special kind of being a single unit.
>For example, the text in a link (<a href="...">...</a>) should
>preferably be kept on one line, partly to avoid confusion (does the blue
>underlined text at the end of a line and at the start of a new line
>constitute one link, or two links?). But <nobr> would say that
>unconditionally.
>

But <symbol> would be a much nicer container. Syntactic unit would also work 
but it's a little to long for my tastes. Symbol I think makes for a nice 
generic container. The line-breaking rules would be the same as <nobr>, but 
you wouldn't have the presentation vs. sematic argument. That's really what 
we're talking about isn't it. Above (...) is a symbol with specific meaning. 
  (-a) is a symbol,
(%20) is a symbol. A symbol shouldn't be broken up into its parts because 
then it's not a symbol anymore.

Orion Adrian

_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and 
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2004 12:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:00 GMT