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

Fwd: Re: p in address tag?

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:26:16 +0100
To: Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <op.szx552we16f2qb@quark.hv1alan>

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:40:55 +0100, Sebastian Redl  
<sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> wrote:

>> How often have you seen <address> inside a <form>?
>
> Who said anything about <form>?

Is it really stupid of me (or anyone else) to assume that when the HTML
specification talks about a 'form', it means what you plunge into a <form>
element and not something else?

> The spec talks of forms.

The word 'forms' should probably be elaborated a bit more on than it is,
because it confuses me. Well, the whole ADDRESS element is confusing me,
so I'm probably not the right person to turn to.

> I use <address> when supplying contact addresses on things such as
> announcements; for example here:

Wow, excellent. Perhaps the first (and last?) time I see the address
element used in a 'form' as specified in HTML.

> The two boxes at the bottom are <address> elements. Similarly, there are  
> various forms on this page, many meant to be printed out and  
> snail-mailed; some of these use <address>.

I guess then that your web page (besides not validating) is a
school-example of the ADDRESS elements' usage. However, this is not how
most people understand or use the element, as this discussion whould prove.

> You can use it for a whole website. The spec talks of "may". That  
> doesn't exclude other uses.

Well, that might be (semantically), but as the element doesn't allow for
anything but inline elements, don't you agree that its use is a bit narrow?

> Take, for example, defninition lists. It's another of those poorly named
> elements that has many uses, not just definition terms and definitions.

Well, that's a good example, but just because one element is
monkey-wrenched into usage its name doesn't exactly encourage, doesn't
mean every other HTML element should be wrenched as well. Tables used for
design is an example of such wrenching.

> My rule of thumb is, as long as I can honestly defend my use of the  
> element to myself, it's fine.

That rule works for you, but it doesn't for everybody. Else, tables for
design and FONT for headings is just as easilly defendable. After all, you
only have to defend it to yourself.

> The problem with specifying things more precisely is a lack of  
> flexibility. If you aren't flexible in your use of HTML elements, most  
> of them are useless.

That's somewhat true, but discussing today's HTML with a futuristic twist
on it, wouldn't you agree that some of HTML 4.01's elements should be
changed, renamed, extended or removed a little?

> I agree, however, that the content model of <address> should allow block  
> elements.

I'm glad to hear that. I guess we agree after all then, so you can just
ignore all the fluff above. Thank you. :-)

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 00:26:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT