Re: separator/seperator Re: About XHTML 2.0

There is a semantic construct that is a seperator, but does not
seperate sections. It is a light weight seperator.  So in this
particular case it is semantic. What I'm getting from the suggestions
here is that we don't need this semantic construct because we can
style it. Well that's still bad. Removing paragraphs because we can
get all we need from div's or vice versa isn't a good approach. Light
weight seperators do exist and I for one like the fact that they get
their own construct.

Orion Adrian

On 5/22/05, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 05-05-21 à 09:13, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> >>> Dropping it would work too. I still haven't seen any use cases that
> >>>  require this particular empty construct.
> >>>
> >> Is there a nice CSS idiom for styling a <span/> or <div/> in an
> >> HR-ish way?
> >>
> >
> > Styling should never be considered a usecase for a semantic element.
> >
> > However, I think you can use 'border' or perhaps '::after' in
> > combination with a line/three-dots/etc.-graphic.
> 
> +1. I don't really see the need for a separator either and CSS can be
> used for the rendering part of a line, but I'm not necessary trusting
> my impressions. I have looked in a Manual of Typography "Le Ramat de
> la Typo" (ISBN:2-922366-02-2) and there's no mention of such things.
> 
> I wonder if the element "hr" has been created to replace the old
> semantics of the element "p" which was at first created to separate
> two paragraphs more than nesting them.
> 
> For the spelling, it has been fixed in the Member draft, the element
> is called "separator".
> 
> 
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
> W3C Conformance Manager
> *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 21:03:29 UTC