W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] [br] element should not be a line break

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:17:24 +0200
Message-ID: <C3A1FF3B-7B6C-4668-957C-C20296521E69@crissov.de>
Ian Hickson:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Thomas Koetter wrote:
>> What strikes me though is that according to the spec "The br element 
>> represents a line break". A *line* break is presentational in nature. 
>> The break is structural, but restricting it to a certain presentation of 
>> that break lacks the desired separation of structure and presentation.
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to consider the br element to be just a 
>> minor logical break inside a paragraph?
> Calling it a "line break" doesn't say how it is rendered. It's just a 
> conceptual description.

It presupposes the existance of lines, though. Lines are a very visual concept, although they can be applied to oral language, as in poems and songs (where ?//? is often an accepted representation for line breaks in transcripts). An oral line may span several literal lines and vice versa.

Paragraphs (and breaks therein), of course, are also a concept of written language, as are sentences.

However, I believe the underlying problem is simply that ?line break? is (too) often used and understood as a synonym for ?new line?, at least by non-native speakers. Speaking of breaks on line or paragraph level therefore makes more sense to me.

> (A "minor logical break inside a paragraph" is not generally represented 
> by a line break, at least not in any typographic conventions I've seen; 
> usually, in my experience, those are denoted either using ellipses, 
> em-dashes, or parentheses.)

That?s true for real paragraphs, but not for most ?non-paragraphic? texts, e.g. addresses.
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 00:17:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:26 UTC