- From: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:03:50 -0500 (CDT)
- To: <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>, <dao@design-noir.de>, <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren said: > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:05:22 +0200, Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org> > wrote: >>>> Because stuff can be quoted inline and across blocks. If QUOTE is >>>> inline, you can't wrap block-level content without violating the >>>> spec. >>> >>> Why do you have to constrain it? >> >> I don't think *he* is constraining it. The spec, traditionally, is. >> I can think of no element that is both structurally inline and >> structurally block at the same time (ignoring TD/TH, which is a weird >> case and not the same as the suggested <quote>-as-block-and-inline >> examples). There is no precedent for it. > > <ins> and <del> would be precedents. They're a pain to style though in > the non "inline" case. Interesting. I thought those were inline-only. Addmitedly, from the HTML 4.01 spec: > These two elements are unusual for HTML in that they may > serve as either block-level or inline elements (but not both). > They may contain one or more words within a paragraph or > contain one or more block-level elements such as > paragraphs, lists and tables. That's an odd duck. I wonder if a <quote> would have the same styling issues you've had, Anne. > It's still not really clear why we so badly need a new element here. > <blockquote> has been abused sure, but that goes for <table>, <img> et > cetera as well. I think that is why "this was abused" is a bad argument. It's not our job to make things fool-proof. No one can police how these elements are used. We can only attempt to make clear the correct way to use them. -- Robert <http://robertdot.org>
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 21:47:44 UTC