- From: Roger Hågensen <rescator@emsai.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 14:01:37 +0200
On 2011-05-03 00:47, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Kornel Lesi?~Dski wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:18:52 -0000, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >>> For example, markup such as the following is sadly common: >>> >>> <p/>Hello world!</p> >>> >>> I have therefore not changed the spec in response to this request. >> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> That just makes the HTML syntax even more complicated and confusing. At >> least at present it's consistent in this respect (although not in many >> other respects). > I'm kinda with Aryeh on this. I don't really see much value in adding yet > another special case here. Consider how this will be in 30 years, once > we've added another dozen elements: "Yes,<foo/> is a closed element. No, > you can't do that with<p/>. Or<ul/>. You can do it with<bar/>, sure." Yeah but something like <p/> hardly makes sense syntax wise, as it's basically an empty paragraph. I'm guessing that many are using <p/> or <p> with no closing equivalent as the same as <br><br> (or <br /> <br /> ) Is there a need for say a <pbr> ? (short for paragraph break) default behavior being the same as two <br>. Then again getting folks to change would be hard, so maybe a <cp> and </cp> would make more sense. (closed paragraph) Myself I always tend to use <br><br> for readability when I don't feel like the text should be split into different paragraphs. And I use <p> and </p> for it's intended purpose, to markup actual paragraphs. Now if <p> was turned into a synonym for <br><br> and </p> simply ignored, I'd be happy to move to using say <cp> and </cp> for paragraphs. -- Roger "Rescator" H?gensen. Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 05:01:37 UTC