Re: <separator /> should be <transition />

Laurens Holst wrote:
>> The semantics an element have don't have to relate to its name. 
>> Vertical languages can simply use <hr /> as its semantics are defined 
>> as that of a separator.
>
> they were actually getting a 
> lot of requests for a <vr /> tag from Asian users.

I actually thought that was just a joke. Asian users can easily use the 
same element and have it presented otherwise. (Although CSS lacks some 
capabilities of expressing vertical text layouts and so does Unicode.)


> I recall you 
> mentioned that the XHTML 2 spec was unclear about what specific 
> semantics certain tags were intended for.

I have said so about a few elements (not tags), yes. However, that was 
mostly about the description of the element, not the naming.


> <separator/> can just as easily be styled to look as <hr/> for 
> non-XHTML2 clients. And in practice it won’t be used that much anyway, 
> so it isn’t such a big deal.

If visual browsers were the only concern, true. But just because you can 
style elements from an "unknown" namespace doesn't make elements 
backwards compatible. That's a myth.


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>