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

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

From: <olafBuddenhagen@web.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:27:28 +0200
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040409102728.GB427@sky.local>


On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 08:24:58PM +0300, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

> I think Jukka is asking for a more generic element. <symbol> would be
> a cool name for some things, but I think it would be quite a stretch
> to say that a password is a "symbol". However, not having linebreaks
> inside a password is significant, because some system might be able to
> have line break character in the password[1]. Passwords can also
> contain normal space characters. The <pre> element wouldn't apply here
> either because I'm interested in marking up inline content.

Note that while <pre> is a block level element, the CSS "pre" property
applies to inline elements just as well.

> The <code> element might be arguably a logical choice for such
> content, but HTML 4.01 defines it as "Designates a fragment of
> computer code" 
> I think that <code> element should be refined to *practically* mean
> <nobr> in inline context and <pre> in block context.
> [1] This raises a question if there should be an equivalent of <pre>
> for inline content which says that linebreaks are meaningful but the
> content should be otherwise considered inline.

This would be <blockcode> and <code>, if the block/inline distinction is
kept. I believe both should have "pre" as default visual rendering, as
multiple blanks shouldn't be collapsed inside <code>.

> I don't like <wbr> because I think such things should be handled on
> character level. 

Here we also agree.

Received on Friday, 9 April 2004 09:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:08 UTC