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

Re: separator/seperator Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:57:56 +0300 (EEST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0505241645330.10590@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Mon, 23 May 2005, Orion Adrian wrote:

> Are empty elements necessary bad? I have yet to see an argument
> against all empty elements.

Empty elements are symptoms of procedural markup. They are not bad as
such; procedural markup has its uses.

Empty elements crept into HTML due to hasty design and lack of structural
approach. This is explained in some detail at my
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html

> Now mind you I think <l> is better than <br /> because being able to
> address lines is important.

Quite right. It illustrates that semantic markup delineates _elements_
whereas empty element tags... well...

> However if you don't need to address something, then an empty element
> as a seperator works wonders.

Procedural markup can work wonders. But a "separator element"
is an oddity. Either it's procedural, and could mean "break a line"
or "page eject" or "pause" or "draw a horizontal line", or it's
structural markup in anomalous syntax: if <hr> is a separator between
elements, then
<body>foo<hr>bar<hr>zap</body>
really means
<body><part>foo</part><part>bar</part><part>zap</part></zap>
with a strange element name and with many tags implied.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 15:58:00 UTC

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