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

Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:55:28 +0300
Message-ID: <4291C4B0.9090804@peda.net>
To: www-html@w3.org

Orion Adrian wrote:
> them all. They really do fall under the same classification as <sup>
> and <sub>. Still <seperator /> is necessary.

There's one crucial difference between <sup>/<sub> and 
<separator>/<hr>/<br>: the former have content but latter are always 
empty.

I thought that this was one of the major reasons to get rid of <br> 
in favor to <l> element. This time, we're looking for separator 
between elements instead of lines of text, but the same reasoning 
still applies.

As I wrote in another post, every time a <hr> or <separator> is 
used, a <h> element could be instead to give the following part a 
name. It's part of the presentation that the name of the part is not 
displayed (and some authors think that because the name wouldn't get 
displayed by default presentation, no name needs to be encoded in 
the DOM either).

The another possible use case for the <separator> is inside 
navigation lists:

   <nl>
     <label />
     <li />
     <li />
     <separator />
     <li />
   </nl>

But in this case, too, I feel that it would be better for 
non-sighted person that <separator> would be replaced with a <label> 
to give name to the items that follow in the next part. If the <nl> 
content model doesn't allow multiple <label> element that's the 
problem we need to fix. Hiding some header or label from the user or 
replacing it with a line or with a couple of stars is just part of 
the presentation, IMHO.

-- 
Mikko
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 11:55:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:04 UTC