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

Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:45:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4294B9CB.8090509@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Edward Lass <elass@goer.state.ny.us>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

Edward Lass wrote:
>>OK, show me the XPath that selects the content between 2 separators.
> 
> This misses the point. A lightweight separator should only be used when
> the information on either side of it isn't intended to be
> chunked[1][2].

But who said it’s always chunked? Maybe in the example of the book prose 
which changes perspective either sides of a separator can be divided up 
into chunks, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be. That aside, you 
would probably still want the separator element:

<chunk>...</chunk>
<separator />
<chunk>...</chunk>


> If the content is separable in such a way that you can section it off
> without losing your place, don't use the separator (or sep) element. In
> those cases, section it properly. Then, you'll be able to use
> technologies like XPath.

That makes sense. However, as said before, it would probably still make 
sense to write down a <separator /> tag between sections. I agree with 
Orion that the separator is a piece of content as well, and not just 
some applied styling to sections.


> The WD currently only reads, "The separator element places a break in
> the document. The default style for this break is a horizontal line in
> Western languages."[4]  This should be expanded to address the
> situations where separator is appropriate and where it would be
> preferable to use the section or div elements.

I entirely agree. But that goes for all elements. E.g. the HTML 4.01 
spec also has elements which are hardly explained. I don’t know exactly 
how well this is done in the XHTML 2.0 spec.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 17:45:46 UTC

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