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

Re: separator; Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Rick Beton <richard.beton@roke.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:28:32 +0100
Message-ID: <429212C0.5000001@roke.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> +1. Especially to the 'vague' argument. If there is needed something 
> different from SECTION that separates it should be a container element 
> as well. Not "another" empty element.



Having read the arguments of both sides of this debate and thought about 
them and my own experience, I can't see any clear need for an empty 
separator.  Drop it, I think.

(my 2p)

Rick
--
Occam's Razor: Ancient philosophical principle, often attributed to 
Occam, but used by many early thinkers: "/Entia non sunt multiplicanda 
praeter necessitatatem/" = No more things should be presumed to exist 
than are absolutely necessary.
...or: keep it simple, stupid!





-- 

Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk

Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK.

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is proprietary to
Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without
permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or
change any contractual relationship.
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 17:28:41 UTC

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