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

Re: The status on <address>

From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:21:08 +0200
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>, "HTML List" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200409161121.14332.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

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

Hi Björn, Hi Asbjørn,
Dear list members,

Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2004 20:43 schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> * Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> >December 1st 2003, Christian Wolfgang Hujer made a proposition[1] to add
> >the <addr> and <blockaddr> elements to XHTML 2.0 to replace the existing
> ><address> element. I just wonder what the status on this proposal is, and
> >why the <address> element in XHTML 2.0 still is a bueprint copy of HTML 4.
>
> http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/Structural?id=7460
> which has been rejected with the note "Superseded by PR#7474" and
> http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/Structural?id=7474
> which has been rejected with the note
>
>   BAE F2F:we have the structuring facility in XHTML, rather it is more
>   efficient to use the meta data (example use property="") Original idea
>   is described in PR#7460. For more discussion, see
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Dec/thread#3
>
> Christian, did the HTML Working Group ever tell you that they rejected
> your suggestion?
Admitting to be a bit proud about some people reminding some of my suggestions 
for improving (X)HTML, I can't remember about the HTML Working Group ever 
telling me that they rejected my suggestion. But are they required to tell 
me?

Those members of the HTML Working Group that communicated enough to give an 
impression about themselves left me with the feeling that they are nice but 
busy persons and they give their best to do a good job. So I don't mind 
wether they "forget" to tell me they rejected the one or the other idea of 
mine.

So if you think, <address/> should be replaced by <addr/> and <blockaddr/> or 
<contact/> and <blockcontact/>, I suggest someone else rerises this isuse, 
don't count so much on me. I think I've already written so much to 
www-html-request that I fear some HTML WG member will tear off my head at the 
next best occasion ;-) (I'm sure I'm just still alive because they were too 
busy to find out my address irl ;-) Also, I'm quite busy with other things, 
and as much as I'd like to discuss issues about XHTML, I can't often find the 
time to do so.

Also if I'm the only one insisting on an idea, maybe the idea isn't worth it. 
That's why I sometimes suggest something and then consequently keep my mouth 
shut about my suggestions.


Back to the topic.

Talking about the note at [1], I don't quite get the point how the structural 
difference between a block and an inline element should be achieved by a 
property attribute?
Perhaps my samples were a bit misleading, giving a postal address and a URL 
only.

Imho the issue about <address/> is not how to differ between different kind of 
addresses, like postal vs. URLs vs. addresses vs. whatsoever. The issue is 
about the document structure: Is the author intending to create a block 
element or an inline element for marking up that particular address?

The example given in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/mod-structural.html#sec_8.1. 
again demonstrates a long going issue about <address/>: Is this a block or an 
inline element?

For the pedantic reader, the issue is clear: <address/> is block. But still 
the element name and the example are misleading. Authors are tempted to use 
<address/> like this:
<p>The W3C Homepage is at <address 
href="http://www.w3.org/">http://www.w3.org</address>.</p>
And I cannot complain about that "misuse" of the <address/> element.

Replacing <address/> by <addr/> and <blockaddr/> or <contact/> and 
<blockcontact/> would solve this issue.

Examples for <contact/> and <blockcontact/>

Inline examples:
<p>The best Pizza in whole Oberbayern, you get at <contact>Untermaxkron, 
Penzberg</contact>.</p>
<p>To contact us, use the email address <contact 
href="mailto:info@itcqis.com">info@itcqis.com</contact>, our postal address 
<contact>ITCQIS GmbH, Ahornstr. 48, D-82377 Penzberg, Germany / EU</contact> 
or our phone number, <contact>+49 (0)8856 939 504</contact>.</p>

Block examples:
<h>Postal Address</h>
<blockcontact>
	<l>ITCQIS GmbH</l>
	<l>Ahornstr. 48</l>
	<l>D-82377 Penzberg</l>
	<l>Germany / EU</l>
</blockcontact>
<h>Phone</h>
<blockcontact>+49 (0)8856 939 504</blockcontact>
<h>Email</h>
<blockcontact href="mailto:info@itcqis.com">info@itcqis.com</blockcontact>

I don't prefer <contact/> and <blockcontact/> over <addr/> and <blockaddr/>, 
please discuss which pair of elements you find better.


[1] http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/Structural?id=7460
[2] http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/Structural?id=7474

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

iD8DBQFBSVsJMgwgpCF2K9sRAge2AJwLGmZardRoPry9516l4YOImWPYcACgjWi5
/Z6j6N9IfnZ/qzj7qhb6JMw=
=yrZi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 09:30:44 GMT

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