- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:38:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > > There are only 4 prose elements, according to HTML 5 section 3.9: > > 3.9 Prose. > 3.9.1 The p element. > 3.9.2 The hr element. > 3.9.3 The br element. > 3.9.4 The dialog element. Hm, that's an unintentional confusion. I've tried to fix this. > FIRSTLY: It seems you, throughout, are mistaking 'prose' for the 'prose > content' cathegory of HTML elements. Olaf's subject, however, was > 'prose' versus 'poetry'. > > SECONDLY: Focusing at Olaf's subject, I claim that the 'Prose' section > contains elements for the "prose use case", in the narrowest meaning of > that word. Ah. I see. I have attempted to fix that confusion by removing the word "prose" from that section title and merging some of the sections around there together. > 1) Constrained rules for the <dl>, which fails to take into account the > real world use of the <dl> element for poetry mark-up. See Lachlan's message > [1]. (As mentioned by Olaf.) > 2) Simon Pieters' message from 5th of March 2007, which you referenced and > took note of [2], goes against the use of <dl> for poetry, when it speaks > against "<dd>...<dd>... instead of <dd><p>...<p>". Notwithstanding existing practice, using <dl> elements for poetry is blatently wrong and an abuse of the semantics of the <dl> element, both in HTML4, and in HTML5, even with HTML5's loosening of the rules. > Had there been a poetry section - instead of only some poetry examples > here and there, then the spec would probably not have overlooked the > poetry usecase for <dl> and its "relaxed" use of unmatching <dt>-s and > <dd>-s. Poetry is no more important than stories, addresses, legal documents, letters, and any number of other document types, none of which have their own section either. > > If anyone has suggestions for a better term than "prose content", I'm > > very eager to here them. I don't like the term myself [...] > > How about 'running text content'. See Wikipedia [1]. 'Running text' in > Dictionary.com: "the body of text in a newspaper, magazine, or the like, > as distinguished from the heads, illustrations, etc". Running text, > which is also known as 'bread (and butter) text' in German and > Scandinavian languages, is not directly related to the type of text - > but merely denotes 'the main bulk of the text'. "Prose content" in HTML5 includes headings, illustrations, etc, so "running text" would be at least as bad if not worse. :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 07:38:55 UTC