W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2005

Re: separator/seperator Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:17:25 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105060307171137ce4f@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

> > We still haven't gotten past the issue that pargroup adds an
> > additional layer of depth in some places and not in others or adds it
> > to all places which seems silly when all I wanted was a simple
> > separation or transition.
> Sounds much like the arguments in favor of <br /> and against <line>.

Except I like <line>, but don't like <br /> as I stated below and for
the reasons below.

> > How does one style non-content or implied content?
> It depends on the style language. But <separator /> _is_ non-content, and
> still you're supposed to style it. It's not the separator that needs to be
> styled; rather, the presentation of paragraph groups should be styled to
> make it apparent that they are distinct groups. As in traditional
> typography, the styling will depend on context.
> In CSS you can easily specify, for example, a bottom border for a pargroup
> that is immediately followed by another pargroup. Or you can use generated
> content to add, say, "* * *" if you like.

It's seems to be that this is however needlessly complicated and
<separator /> is content in the semantic sense for all the reasons
that have been described before and it's not about organization.

> > <br /> was bad because I never wanted to address the break,
> Huh? Surely there are situations where the break should be suppressed, or
> replaced by something else.

In those partcular cases, the use case is so small that I'll live. And
I can't imagine how you could possibly suppress it and expect the
semantics of the document to stay the same.

> > <pargroup> is bad because I
> > don't want to address the groups, but I want to address the break.
> It would be very natural to style a group of paragraphs. Separating it
> from the next group is one example of that.

Can you give me an example of anywhere, anywhere that styling groups
of paragraphs has been used other than in the case of separators. Then
ask yourself, how rare are those?

> > There are no truths here, only statistical realities.
> Statistics only tell us that 97.52 % of all percentages have been made up.
> This isn't about statistics, and this isn't about religion or philosophy.

Why is it that people disregard statistics. Statistics can be used
badly, but they are a very powerful tool. Dismissing them is to
dismiss the most commonly used tool of science.

And just to clear things up: reasoning is either about deduction (from
a priori) or induction (statistics). There aren't any of the former
here since we're not working from universal, unquestionable truths. So
it must be about the statistics.

> It's about describing the structure of documents. Whenever you are tempted
> to define and use an empty element, you have moved from structure to
> presentation, or you are using contrived markup that throws content data
> into attributes.

This is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about religion. The
above has no statistics or fundamental truths to back it up, yet
people (at least yourself) are claiming it.

Empty elements do not garuntee a move into presentation and I'll prove
it right now.


Wow, what a shocker. Empty elements as SMGL spec says represent
replaced content like our wonderful <separator>/<transition>/<sep>
element (whatever you want to call it).

What content data am I throwing into attributes? I don't even
undestand this one.

Orion Adrian
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 14:18:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:10 UTC