- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:09:11 +0200
Matthew Raymond: > Christoph P?per wrote: > If you're going to quote someone, don't remove portions of the quote > without indicating you have done so. Please, I used "(...)" (because we were discussing semantics not CSS capabilities) and the rest is just obviously shortened. >> Yes. It's just like >> >> Foo >> <br> >> Bar >> >> versus >> >> Foo >> </p><p> >> Bar. > > The first would yield the following: > > | Foo > | Bar > > The second would yield this: > > | Foo > | > | Bar You are thinking way to presentational! Who says there has to be an empty line (or a margin of 1em) between paragraphs? But if you like, you can replace that instance of 'br' with multiple ones. >> That's why I said that you could also use 'class' on 'p' instead of >> 'div' around 'p' to do the grouping. > > So now the web author not only am I forced to define sections and CSS > for the sections just to get a separator, but I have to give the > sections names as well... No, you don't have to. You could class the sections /additionally/ or the paragraphs /instead/ (or additionally). > If I want to treat a chapter as one big, flat section, and the only > exception is where I have the separator, then it makes perfect sense. We're running in circles. I can't see a semantical reason for doing so (i.e. nobody provided one) and thus don't see the reason for a 'separator' (or 'hr') element type in XHTML.
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 17:09:11 UTC